Empirical exploration of therelationship between emotional

intelligence, perceivedorganizational justice and

turnover intentionsGalit Meisler

Division of Public Administration and Policy, School of Political Sciences,University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa, Israel

Abstract

Purpose – The current study aims to examine the relationship between emotional intelligence andperceived organizational justice, and how the interplay between them influences turnover intentions.Design/methodology/approach – A sample of 368 employees from a financial organization wasused to test the research model and hypotheses. Archival information regarding participants’ actualturnover was also acquired.Findings – Emotional intelligence was positively related to perceived organizational justice andnegatively related to turnover intentions. Furthermore, perceived organizational justice fully mediatedthe relationship between emotional intelligence and turnover intentions. The archival data concerningemployees’ actual turnover was significantly related to the self-report turnover intentions.Practical implications – Emotional intelligence training may be a powerful tool that organizationsand human resource managers can employ to enhance perceived organizational justice and reduceemployees’ turnover.Originality/value – This research broadens the scope through which the contribution of emotionalintelligence in the workplace can be viewed. Findings from the current study advance our understandingof the process by which emotional intelligence affects employees’ perceptions and attitudes.

Keywords Employees attitudes, Employees behaviour

Paper type Research paper

1. IntroductionDuring the past two decades, research on emotional intelligence (EI) has flourished.Scholars from different research fields have explored the contribution of EI to explaininga variety of potential outcomes, such as physical and mental health (Ali et al., 2009;Austin et al., 2005; Ciarrochi et al., 2002; Johnson and Holdsworth, 2009; Petrides et al.,2007; Thompson et al., 2007), overall well-being (Austin et al., 2005; Gallagher and Vella-Brodrick, 2008; Palmer et al., 2002; Thompson et al., 2007), social support (Lopes et al.,2003; Song et al., 2010), and academic achievement (Mayer et al., 2008; Song et al., 2010),to name only a few. Nevertheless, little research attention has been given to the roleEI plays in the workplace (see Law et al., 2008), and even less to its role in shapingemployees’ work attitudes and behaviors.

A few studies have explored the relationship between EI and various work attitudesor behaviors, including job satisfaction, emotional commitment, and turnoverintentions (Carmeli, 2003; Jordan and Troth, 2011; Sy et al., 2006; Vigoda-Gadot andMeisler, 2010; Wong and Law, 2002). Yet little is known about its contribution toexplaining other work outcomes, such as organizational justice. It should be noted that

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available atwww.emeraldinsight.com/0142-5455.htm

Received 20 May 2012Revised 26 October 2012

19 December 2012Accepted 19 December 2012

Employee RelationsVol. 35 No. 4, 2013

pp. 441-455r Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0142-5455DOI 10.1108/ER-05-2012-0041

441

Emotionalintelligence and

turnover

a recent study of Di Fabio and Palazzeschi (2012) explored the association betweenEI and organizational justice using the Bar-On (1997) mixed model of EI among Italiannurses. Although that study shed light on the relationship between EI andorganizational justice, few gaps still remain. For example, we still do not know enoughabout the interplay between EI and organizational justice under other circumstances,or about the potential mediating role of perceived organizational justice on therelationship between EI and work outcomes.

The present study aims to address these gaps while further validating Di Fabio andPalazzeschi’s (2012) findings in a different country, industry and research population,and while conceptualizing EI as suggested in the ability model. Specifically, the currentstudy explores the relationships between EI and perceived organizational justiceamong a diverse population of employees from a financial organization located inIsrael. Beyond that, it explores the assumed mediating role of perceived organizationaljustice on the relationship between EI and turnover intentions.

This study makes three main contributions. First, it expands our knowledgeconcerning the role played by EI in the workplace. Second, it enhances our understandingof how EI contributes to shaping perceptions and consequences of justice in organizations.Last, it clarifies the process by which EI influences work attitudes and behaviors. It shouldbe noted that by shedding light on the manner in which EI affects perceptions andattitudes, the study has important practical implications. Given that EI training has beenfound to enhance individuals’ EI (Dulewicz and Higgs, 2004; Groves et al., 2008; McEnrueet al., 2009; Nelis et al., 2009), EI training can be used to improve employees’ perceptionsand attitudes, and consequently their effectiveness.

2. Theory2.1 EIThe most broadly accepted definition of EI is that presented by Salovey and Mayer (1990),the scholars who coined the term EI. According to Mayer and Salovey (1997, p. 10), EI is“the ability to perceive accurately, appraise, and express emotions; the ability to accessand/or generate feelings when they facilitate thought; the ability to understand emotionsand emotional knowledge; and the ability to regulate emotions to promote emotional andintellectual growth.” In accordance with Mayer and Salovey’s (1997) model, known as theability model of EI, Wong and Law suggested that EI includes the following fourcomponents: self-emotion appraisal, others’ emotion appraisal, regulation of emotion, anduse of emotion (Law et al., 2004; Wong and Law, 2002). Thus, EI, as conceptualized by theability model, involves an intellectual understanding of emotion and how emotion guidesthought and actions (Mayer et al., 2008).

Other scholars, including Goleman (1995) and Bar-On (1997), have suggested andexplored alternative models of EI. These alternative models consider emotionalabilities in the context of personality factors and traits (such as motivation andassertiveness), and so are referred to as mixed models (Mayer et al., 1999, 2004a). Thesemixed models have led some critics to raise concerns about the validity of EI as aconstruct. For example, Davies et al. (1998) argued that measures of EI overlapunacceptably with measures of personality traits, and similar doubts were raised byConte (2005) and Landy (2005). Another critique came from Locke (2005), who arguedthat the definition of EI is too broad to be meaningful, and – perhaps morefundamentally – that EI cannot be considered a form of intelligence. Responses to suchcriticisms by proponents of the ability model established the validity of Mayer andSalovey’s model (Ciarrochi et al., 2000; Mayer, 2001; Mayer et al., 1999, 2004a, b), and

442

ER35,4

called for a distinction between the ability model and the mixed models (Ashkanasyand Daus, 2005; Daus and Ashkanasy, 2005; Mayer et al., 1999). Partly in response tosuch concerns, the current study refers to EI as conceptualized by the ability model.

Empirical evidence from the last decade has demonstrated that EI contributes toexplaining organizational entrepreneurship, service orientation and sales performance(Camuffo et al., 2012; Gignac et al., 2012; Kidwell et al., 2011; Zampetakis et al., 2009),as well as team effectiveness, team decision-making processes, and team performance(Day and Carroll, 2004; Hess and Bacigalupo, 2011; Hur et al., 2011). Furthermore,previous research has found that high EI improves outcomes on various measuresrelevant to the realms of work and career building, including transformationalleadership, conflict resolution, political skill, success in job interviews, and jobperformance (Day and Carroll, 2004; Joseph and Newman, 2010; Harms and Crede, 2010;Mayer et al., 2008; Meisler, 2012; O’Boyle et al., 2010). The contribution of EI to explainingwork attitudes and behaviors was also explored by a few studies. Findings from thesestudies have shown that EI is positively related to job satisfaction and emotionalcommitment (Carmeli, 2003; Sy et al., 2006; Vigoda-Gadot and Meisler, 2010; Wong andLaw, 2002). However, there have been inconsistent findings regarding the associationbetween EI and both turnover intentions and perceived organizational politics (Carmeli,2003; Jordan and Troth, 2011; Meisler and Vigoda-Gadot, 2012; Vigoda-Gadot andMeisler, 2010; Wong and Law, 2002), as well. Moreover, the potential influence of EI onperceived organizational justice has not been extensively explored (for an exception seeDi Fabio and Palazzeschi, 2012), nor has the possibility that perceived organizationaljustice mediates the EI-work outcomes relationship.

2.2 Perceptions of organizational justiceOrganizational justice refers to fairness within the organization (Greenberg, 1990). Pastresearch has validated three distinct dimensions of organizational justice: distributive,procedural, and interactional. The first dimension, distributive justice, is based on socialexchange theory and involves the process by which individuals subjectively evaluatethe level of fairness in the organization by comparing their own ratio of “inputs”(e.g. contributions, effort, and performance) vs outcomes (e.g. salary and promotions) tothat of relevant referable others (Adams, 1965). The second dimension, proceduraljustice, refers to the manner in which individuals perceive the procedures used to allocateorganizational resources and rewards as fair or unfair (Thibaut and Walker, 1975).The third dimension, interactional justice, involves perceptions of fairness regarding themanner in which managers and others who control organizational resources/rewardstreat the individuals who receive such outcomes (Bies and Moag, 1986). Hence, the thirddimension refers to the interpersonal behavior of those who allocate resources andrewards (e.g. whether they show respect, honesty, and politeness).

Over the last four decades, research on organizational justice has shown itscontribution to enhancing desirable work outcomes. For example, perceptions oforganizational justice were found to be positively related to job satisfaction, trust,organizational commitment, task performance, and organizational citizenshipbehavior (Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001; Crow et al., 2012;Erkutlu, 2011; Klendauer and Deller, 2009; Nowakowski and Conlon, 2005;Palaiologos et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2010). Furthermore, perceived organizationaljustice was found to reduce undesirable work outcomes such as turnover intentionsand counterproductive work behaviors (Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001; Colquittet al., 2001; Nowakowski and Conlon, 2005).

443

Emotionalintelligence and

turnover

2.3 Integrating EI and perceived organizational justiceSuggesting EI as an antecedent of perceived organizational justice is not a new idea.This suggestion was previously presented by Quebbeman and Rozell (2002), whotheorized that EI influences organizational justice and its consequences in two ways:predicting perceptions of organizational injustice, and mitigating the negativeemotional reactions raised by perceived injustice (see Fox et al., 2001). Taking thepropositions of Quebbeman and Rozell (2002) one step forward, Devonish andGreenidge (2010) tested and validated a moderating effect of EI on the relationshipbetween procedural justice and contextual performance.

The direct effect of EI on organizational justice was also explored in the study of DiFabio and Palazzeschi (2012). Findings from that study show that EI explains anincremental variance of organizational justice over and above the variance explainedby personality traits (Di Fabio and Palazzeschi, 2012). Keeping in mind that the studyof Di Fabio and Palazzeschi (2012) used the Bar-On (1997) mixed model of EI amongItalian nurses, more evidence is needed to validate the EI-organizational justicerelationship in other settings (i.e. countries, industries, and research populations). Thepresent study addresses this issue and explores the relationship between EI andorganizational justice among a diverse group of employees from a financialorganization located in Israel. Furthermore, the current study attempts to shed morelight on the relationship between EI and turnover intentions by testing a mediatingeffect of organizational justice in the EI-organizational justice relationship.

Figure 1 presents the research model. Under this model, EI affects perceivedorganizational justice, which in turn affects employees’ turnover intentions. Putdifferently, the research model suggests a mediation effect of perceived organizationaljustice on the relationship between EI and turnover intentions. The justifications forexpecting EI to affect perceptions of organizational justice derive from the fourdimensions of EI: self-emotion appraisal, others’ emotion appraisal, regulation ofemotion, and use of emotion (Law et al., 2004; Wong and Law, 2002).

The expected effect of EI on perceived justice is mainly justified in light of theinfluence of EI on the manner in which individuals perceive and interpret the behaviorsand actions of others (Quebbeman and Rozell, 2002). How people interpret others’behaviors, actions, and (perhaps most important) intentions affects whether they judgeworkplace events to be fair or unfair. The ability to understand another’s emotions(Mayer and Salovey, 1997; Mayer, 2001), and consequently perspectives, motives, andbehaviors, helps individuals with high EI to understand workplace events moreaccurately, thus decreasing the likelihood that misunderstandings will lead them toevaluate events as unfair.

Other reasons for expecting a positive relationship between EI and perceptions oforganizational justice relate to the other branches of the ability model, and specificallythe ability in high EI individuals to understand, regulate and control repeated negative

EmotionalIntelligence

TurnoverIntentions

PerceivedOrganizational

JusticeFigure 1.A mediation effect ofperceived justice on therelationship between EIand turnover intentions

444

ER35,4

emotions and thoughts in themselves. Their high understanding and control of theirown emotions help these individuals avoid rumination about stressful and disturbingevents (e.g. repeated thoughts about feelings of distress and the circumstances whichcaused them) (Petrides et al., 2007). In other words, individuals high in EI are lesslikely to repeatedly think about unfair circumstances and events that occurred in theworkplace. On the contrary, such individuals are more likely to employ their superiorability to use their emotions to motivate themselves to effectively cope with workplaceinjustice. In contrast, low EI individuals are expected to dwell on such events (seeSalovey et al., 2002) which will lead them to perceive these events as more frequent andsevere than they actually are. As a result, perceptions of organizational justice arelikely to be weaker among individuals with low EI, and stronger among those high inEI. Based on these arguments, the first hypothesis proposes:

H1. EI will be positively related to perceived organizational justice.

According to Wong and Law (2002), employees high in EI are expected to show highlevels of job satisfaction, and to have positive experiences and positive affective emotionswhile at work. Low EI employees, on the other hand, are expected to show lower levels ofjob satisfaction, and to have less positive experiences and emotions while at work.Consequently, Wong and Law suggested that employees high in EI will be less likely toleave their jobs, while employees low in EI will be more likely to do so. Otherjustifications for expecting a negative correlation between EI and turnover intentions arederived from the levels of organizational commitment and leader-member exchangeamong high and low EI employees. Given that high EI individuals are more committed totheir organizations (Carmeli, 2003) and have better relationships with their supervisors( Jordan and Troth, 2011), it is reasonable to assume that such employees will be lesslikely to leave. Low EI employees, however, are more likely to leave their organizationsgiven that: they are less committed to their organizations (Carmeli, 2003), and theirrelationships with supervisors are worse ( Jordan and Troth, 2011).

Studies that have tested the relationship between EI and turnover intentions haveproduced inconsistent findings (Carmeli, 2003; Jordan and Troth, 2011; Vigoda-Gadotand Meisler, 2010; Wong and Law, 2002). In an attempt to shed more light on the natureof this relationship, the present study will put it to another empirical test. Relying onthe justifications presented above, the second hypothesis argues that:

H2. EI will be negatively related to turnover intentions.

Suggesting only direct effects between EI and work outcomes might be anoversimplification of reality. It is more likely that such a relationship includesmoderators and/or mediators. With regard to mediators, a few recent studies havefound several mediators for the relationship between EI and employees’ workoutcomes (see Jordan and Troth, 2011; Kafetsios and Zampetakis, 2008; Vigoda-Gadotand Meisler, 2010). The current study follows this line of research and argues that theEI-turnover intentions relationship is mediated by perceived organizational justice.Relying on empirical evidence that perceived organizational justice plays a key role inshaping employees’ turnover intentions (Colquitt et al., 2001; Nowakowski and Conlon,2005), and keeping in mind the assumed effect of EI on perceptions of organizationaljustice (H1), this study predicts that higher EI leads to higher perceptions oforganizational justice, which in turn reduce employees’ turnover intentions. Similarly,

445

Emotionalintelligence and

turnover

lower EI leads to lower perceptions of organizational justice, and consequently tohigher turnover intentions. Formally, the third hypothesis suggests that:

H3. Perceived organizational justice will mediate the relationship between EI andturnover intentions. EI will affect perceptions of organizational justice, which inturn will affect turnover intentions.

3. Method3.1 Sample and procedureIn total, 432 questionnaires were distributed among employees of a financialorganization located in the center of Israel. Of these, 368 usable questionnaires werereturned (a return rate of 85.2 percent). Participation in the study was voluntary.Employees could choose not to participate in the study and were guaranteed that theirinterests would not be affected. To maximize the return rate and increase employees’trust in the study, the researcher personally distributed and collected the questionnaires.While doing so, the researcher assured employees that the data collected would be usedfor research purposes only, and that full confidentiality would be maintained.

The questionnaires were matched to employee turnover data through a code numberassigned by the organization. The researcher had access only to these code numbers, notto the names of participating employees or any other identifying information.Furthermore, the organization had no access to the collected questionnaires. Hence, theanonymity of participating employees was assured, reducing the likelihood of socialdesirability bias.

The profile of the employees who took part in the survey was highly heterogeneous.They represented a variety of departments (e.g. financial, marketing, service, etc.), jobs(e.g. clerks, accountants, technical assistants, etc.), and different ranks in theorganizational hierarchy (employees and low, mid and upper level managers). Abreakdown of the sample reveals that 41 percent of the respondents were males, andthe average age was 29 (SD¼ 7.5). On average, respondents had 14 years of education(SD¼ 2), and their average tenure in the organization was 28 months (SD¼ 2.3).

3.2 Measures3.2.1 EI. The Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale (WLEIS; Law et al., 2004;Wong and Law, 2002) was used to measure EI. This parsimonious self-report scale of16 items is consistent with Mayer and Salovey’s (1997) definition of EI (Ashkanasy andDaus, 2005; Cartwright and Pappas, 2008; Daus and Ashkanasy, 2005; Devonishand Greenidge, 2010; Sy et al., 2006; Whitman et al., 2011). Recent studies have testedand retested this scale in different cultures and different ethnic and gender groups (Lawet al., 2004, 2008; Shi and Wang, 2007; Whitman et al., 2011), and established it as asolid measure with sound validity and reliability. Specifically, research has supportedits factor structure, internal consistency, convergent validity, and discriminate validity(Law et al., 2004; Wong and Law, 2002). The WLEIS was designed specifically for theuse in organizations (Law et al., 2004; Wong and Law, 2002), and was found to be abetter predictor of job performance compared to the MSCEIT, the task-based test of EI(Law et al., 2008). Moreover, it was found to be positively related with job satisfactionafter controlling for personality factors (Sy et al., 2006).

Consistent with Mayer and Salovey’s (1997) four branches ability model, the scaleincludes four dimensions: self-emotion appraisal; others’ emotion appraisal; regulation

446

ER35,4

of emotion; and use of emotion. Sample items for the four dimensions are, respectively,“I have a good sense of why I have certain feelings most of the time”; “I always knowmy friends’ emotions from their behavior”; “I am able to control my temper so that I canhandle difficulties rationally”; and “I always set goals for myself and then try my bestto achieve them.” All items were answered on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Following previous research (Kafetsios andZampetakis, 2008; Kluemper, 2008; Vigoda-Gadot and Meisler, 2010; Zampetakis, 2011;Zampetakis et al., 2009), we used the global construct to measure EI. Reliability of theglobal construct of EI in previous research was 0.87 (Vigoda-Gadot and Meisler, 2010),and for the four dimensions of self-emotion appraisal, other’s emotion appraisal, use ofemotion and regulation of emotion were 0.89, 0.85, 0.88, and 0.76, respectively (Wongand Law, 2002). Reliability of the global construct in the current sample was 0.88, andfor the four dimensions were 0.84, 0.86, 0.81, and 0.85, respectively.

3.2.2 Perceived organizational justice. Perceived organizational justice was measuredusing six items based on Niehoff and Moorman (1993), designed to tap the threedimensions of organizational justice: distributive, procedural, and interactional. Sampleitems for the three dimensions, respectively, are “Overall, the rewards I receive here arequite fair”; “Job decisions are made in an unbiased and fair manner”; and “Whendecisions are made about my job, the managers treat me in a fair and kind manner.” Thescale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Reliability in former researchwas above 0.74 (Moorman and Niehoff, 1998; Niehoff and Moorman, 1993). Reliability inthis sample was 0.84.

3.2.3 Turnover intentions. Turnover intentions were measured using a four-item scalebased on Farrell and Rusbult (1992). Sample items include “I often think about quitting,”and “Lately, I have taken an interest in job offers in the newspaper.” Responses rangedfrom 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Reliability in previous research was 0.87(Vigoda-Gadot and Meisler, 2010). Reliability for this sample was 0.9.

3.2.4 Job perseverance. To enhance our confidence in the self-report turnoverintentions variable, we contacted the organization 51 months after the original datacollection and acquired archival information regarding participants’ actual turnover,including the date any participants left the organization. We used these data to producea Job perseverance variable: namely, the number of months each participant worked inthe organization after the original data collection.

3.2.4 Control variables. We collected several control variables as a routineprocedure. Three of these, namely age, tenure, and net income, were included in theanalysis due to significant relationships with the research variables. Education andtenure were measured as continuous variables and gender as a categorical variable.

4. ResultsIn accordance with the theoretical model presented above, the statistical analyses weredesigned to address the research questions pertaining to the direct and indirect(mediated through perceived justice) effects of EI on turnover intentions and jobperseverance. Basic descriptive statistics and correlations among all model variableswere computed via SPSS (version 19). The full model was estimated via the structuralequation modeling software AMOS (version 19).

Table I presents descriptive statistics, an inter-correlations matrix, and reliabilitiesof the research variables. As the table shows, EI is positively related to perceivedorganizational justice (r¼ 0.17; po0.001), and negatively related to turnover intentions(r¼�0.14; po0.01). Furthermore, perceived organizational justice is negatively related

447

Emotionalintelligence and

turnover

to turnover intentions (r¼�0.47; po0.001). These findings are in line with oursuggestions. In addition, we examined the correlation between job perseverance andturnover intentions. As expected, job perseverance was negatively related to turnoverintentions (r¼�0.21; po0.001), supporting the validity of the turnover intentionsvariable. Significant correlations between EI and job perseverance (r¼ 0.03; ns) or betweenperceptions of organizational justice and job perseverance (r¼ 0.04; ns) were not found.

To examine whether perceived organizational justice mediates the effects of EI onturnover intentions, the direct and indirect effects of EI on turnover intentions wereestimated using the bootstrap method, following Shrout and Bolger (2002) (theestimates were made via AMOS with 2,000 samples). Gender, education, and tenurewere included in the model as observed control variables. Figure 2 shows the structuraleffects of EI on perceived organizational justice and on turnover intentions. The figureomits the control variables to avoid unnecessary clutter.

The direct effects of EI on perceived organizational justice (b¼ 0.17; po0.001) andof perceived justice on turnover intentions (b¼�0.46; po0.001) were both significant.The analysis provides evidence in support of the mediating role of perceivedorganizational justice. The indirect effect of EI on turnover intentions was significant(b¼�0.08; po0.01). The direct zero-order effect of EI on turnover intentions(excluding perceived organizational justice from the regression) was significant(b¼�0.14; po0.001), while the direct effect of EI on turnover intentions after addingperceived justice as a mediating variable dropped to insignificance (b¼�0.06; p¼ ns),indicating full mediation. Together, EI and perceived justice explained 23 percent of thevariance in turnover intentions. Last, turnover intentions significantly predicted jobperseverance in the organization (b¼�0.20; po0.001).

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4

1. Emotional intelligence 3.98 0.48 (0.88)2. Perceived justice 3.45 0.75 0.17*** (0.84)3. Turnover intentions 2.16 1.02 �0.14** �0.47*** (0.9)4. Job perseverance 31.63 19.07 0.03 0.04 �0.21*** –

Notes: n¼ 368. *pp0.05, **pp0.01, ***pp0.001

Table I.Descriptive statistics,intercorrelations,and reliabilities(in parentheses)

–0.21***

EI

Justice

Turnover

e1

e20.17*** –0.47***

–0.06

Notes: n=368. EI, Emotional intelligence; Justice, Perceived organizational justice;Turnover, Turnover intentions; Perseverance, Job perseverance. ***p<0.001

Perseverance

e3

Figure 2.Structural effects of EI onperceived justice andturnover intentions

448

ER35,4

5. DiscussionIn recent years, researchers have begun to recognize the contribution of EI toexplaining employees’ work attitudes and behaviors. Empirical evidence has shownthat EI enhances both job satisfaction and emotional commitment (Carmeli, 2003; Syet al., 2006; Vigoda-Gadot and Meisler, 2010; Wong and Law, 2002). Nevertheless,findings regarding the association between EI and turnover intentions have beeninconsistent (Carmeli, 2003; Jordan and Troth, 2011; Vigoda-Gadot and Meisler, 2010;Wong and Law, 2002). Furthermore, only little research has addressed the relationshipbetween EI and perceived organizational justice (Di Fabio and Palazzeschi, 2012), andthe potential mediating role of perceived organizational justice on the relationshipbetween EI and turnover intentions remained unexplored until now. The present studyaddressed these gaps. Relying on theory and evidence from the EI literature, EI wasexpected to be positively related to perceived organizational justice, and negativelyrelated to turnover intentions. Furthermore, perceived organizational justice wasexpected to mediate the association between EI and turnover intentions.

Findings from the current study provide evidence for all three hypotheses. First, thecurrent study found evidence for a negative association between EI and turnoverintentions (H1). Second, our findings support the positive relationship between EI andperceived organizational justice (H2). These findings suggest that the manner in whichorganizational justice is perceived and evaluated is affected by individual differences inthe levels of emotional abilities. It should be noted that a significant relationshipbetween EI and perceptions of organizational justice was recently found by Di Fabioand Palazzeschi (2012). Nonetheless, given that Di Fabio and Palazzeschi’s (2012) studyused a mixed model of EI (Bar-On, 1997) among Italian nurses from two hospitals,additional evidence for its validity was needed. The current study addressed this issueand further established the association between EI and perceived organizational justicewhile conceptualizing EI as suggested by the ability model of EI, and among a diversegroup of employees from an Israeli financial organization.

Finally, perceived organizational justice was found to mediate the relationshipbetween EI and turnover intentions. Thus, it was found that EI affects turnoverintentions not directly, but indirectly, through its effect on perceived organizationaljustice. Put differently, EI affects the manner in which organizational justice is perceived,which in turn affects employees’ turnover intentions. To the best of our knowledge, thisstudy is the first to explore perceived organizational justice as a mediator in therelationship between EI and any work outcome.

5.1 Contributions and implicationsThe present study makes three main contributions. First, not enough research hasfocussed on exploring the role EI plays in the workplace (see Law et al., 2008), and evenless has focussed on its role in the context of employees’ work attitudes. The currentstudy’s findings demonstrate once again that the contribution of EI in the workplace isnot limited to explaining career success (Day and Carroll, 2004; Joseph and Newman,2010; Harms and Crede, 2010; Mayer et al., 2008; O’Boyle et al., 2010). Rather, EI shapesemployees’ work attitudes as well. Second, the findings suggest that EI affects howemployees perceive the level of justice in their organization. These findings suggestthat the way in which organizational justice is perceived is not influenced by“objective” events and circumstances alone, but also by employees’ EI level. Last, thepossibility that intervening variables mediate the association between EI andemployees’ work attitudes/behaviors has not been extensively explored. The current

449

Emotionalintelligence and

turnover

study showed that perceived justice mediates the EI-turnover intentions relationship,which advances our understanding of how EI affects work outcomes.

Finally, this study has practical implications worthy of mention. Research has shownthat higher perceptions of organizational justice are associated with greater jobsatisfaction, organizational commitment, job performance, and organizational citizenshipbehavior (Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001; Nowakowski andConlon, 2005). Findings from the current study, which was conducted in a financialorganization located in Israel, suggest that higher EI leads to greater perceptions oforganizational justice. Given that empirical studies have already shown that EI trainingcan improve EI levels (Dulewicz and Higgs, 2004; Groves et al., 2008; McEnrue et al., 2009;Nelis et al., 2009), the potential implications of EI training to enhancing perceived justice,and consequently, organizational effectiveness are evident.

5.2 Strengths and limitationsThe present study has a number of strengths worthy of elaboration. First, this studyintegrates knowledge from both the EI and organizational justice literatures to advanceour understanding of how these two fields integrate. Second, this study used multiplesources of data: aside from the original data from the participating employees, archivaldata was used to estimate the actual period each participant stayed in the organizationafter the first data collection. This secondary source of data enhances the persuasivepower of our findings and the conclusions that can be drawn from them. Other strengthsof the current study are the large number of participants and their heterogeneous profile.

Several limitations of this study should be noted. First, employees’ EI levels wereevaluated by means of the WLEIS (Law et al., 2004; Wong and Law, 2002), which is a self-report scale. Using self-report scales raises concerns regarding common method varianceand social desirability bias. Yet common method variance does not invalidate mostresearch findings (see Crampton and Wagner, 1994; Doty and Glick, 1998; Spector, 2006).Moreover, previous research that used the WLEIS has found moderate correlationsbetween self, peer, and supervisor assessments of EI (Law et al., 2004; Wong and Law,2002), which reduces the concerns associated with self-report scales. Nevertheless, futurestudies should replicate the present study’s findings while employing a task-basedmeasurement of EI and/or alternative methods of data collection.

A second limitation concerns the fact that the current study was conducted in onefinancial organization located in Israel. Validating the findings of this research in othercountries, industries, and organizations will enhance the authority of any conclusionsdrawn from it.

Third, most of the data in the current study was collected from a single source (i.e.self-report questionnaires). In order to enhance our assurance in the findings wecollected additional data about employees’ actual turnover. Although this additionaldata was positively related to turnover intentions, it was not found to be significantlyrelated to EI, or to perceptions of organizational justice.

Last, one could argue that matching the collected questionnaires with archival datacould affect the anonymity of participating employees, thus raising concerns aboutsocial desirability bias. In order to minimize this potential bias, code numbers wereused to match between the collected questionnaires and data from the organization’sarchive. The researcher had no access to participants’ names, and the organization hadno access to the collected questionnaires. Hence, the anonymity of participatingemployees and the confidentiality of the collected data were maintained, reducing thelikelihood of social desirability bias.

450

ER35,4

5.3 Directions for future researchThe present study and its findings raise a number of ideas for future research. First, thisstudy explored the association between EI, perceptions of organizational justice, andturnover intentions. Future studies designed to investigate the effect of EI and perceivedorganizational justice on other dependent variables, such as job satisfaction,organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, and task performance,will advance our understanding of how EI and perceived organizational justice togetherinfluence the effectiveness of employees and organizations. Second, the current studysuggests that EI training would be effective in enhancing perceived justice, andconsequently, organizational effectiveness and the bottom line. Putting this presumption tothe practical test would be an important avenue for future research.

5.4 Summary and conclusionsThe present study explored the association between EI, perceived organizational justice,and turnover intentions, among a heterogeneous group of employees from a financialorganization located in Israel. Findings from this study support the relationship betweenEI and perceived organizational justice, as well as the relationship between EI andturnover intentions. The assumed mediating role of perceived organizational justice onthe relationship between EI and turnover intentions was also found.

The current study contributes to our knowledge on EI in the workplace. Thefindings shed light on the interplay between EI and both perceived organizationaljustice and turnover intentions. As far as we know, this study is the first to explore andvalidate the mediating role of perceived organizational justice on the relationshipbetween EI and work outcomes. Hopefully, this study will encourage other researchersto continue the investigation into EI, organizational justice, and employees workattitudes, behaviors, and performance.

References

Adams, J.S. (1965), “Inequity in social exchange”, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,Vol. 62, pp. 335-343.

Ali, F., Amorim, I.S. and Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2009), “Empathy deficits and trait emotionalintelligence in psychopathy and Machiavellianism”, Personality and Individual Differences,Vol. 47, pp. 758-762.

Ashkanasy, N.M. and Daus, C.S. (2005), “Rumors of the death of emotional intelligence inorganizational behavior are vastly exaggerated”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,Vol. 26, pp. 441-452.

Austin, E.J., Saklofske, D.H. and Egan, V. (2005), “Personality, well being and health correlatesof trait emotional intelligence”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 38,pp. 547-558.

Bar-On, R. (1997), Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: Technical Manual, MultihealthSystems, Toronto.

Bies, R.J. and Moag, J.S. (1986), “Interactional justice: communication criteria of fairness”,in Lewicki, R.J. and Sheppard, B.H. (Eds), Research in Negotiation in Organizations, JAIPress, Greenwich, CT, pp. 43-55.

Camuffo, A., Gerli, F. and Gubitta, P. (2012), “Competencies matter: modeling effectiveentrepreneurship in northeast of Italy small firms”, Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 19No. 1, pp. 48-66.

Carmeli, A. (2003), “The relationship between emotional intelligence and work attitudes,behavior and outcomes”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 8, pp. 788-813.

451

Emotionalintelligence and

turnover

Cartwright, S. and Pappas, C. (2008), “Emotional intelligence, its measurement and implications forthe workplace”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 149-171.

Ciarrochi, J.V., Chan, A.Y.C. and Caputi, P. (2000), “A critical evaluation of the emotionalintelligence construct”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 28, pp. 539-561.

Ciarrochi, J., Deane, F.P. and Anderson, S. (2002), “Emotional intelligence moderates therelationship between stress and mental health”, Personality and Individual Differences,Vol. 32, pp. 197-209.

Cohen-Charash, Y. and Spector, P.E. (2001), “The role of justice in organizations: a meta-analysis”,Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 86 No. 2, pp. 278-321.

Colquitt, J.A., Conlon, D.A., Wesson, M.J., Porter, C.O.L.H. and Yee Ng, K. (2001), “Justice at themillennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research”, Journalof Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 425-445.

Conte, J.M. (2005), “A review and critique of emotional intelligence measures”, Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, Vol. 26, pp. 433-440.

Crampton, S.M. and Wagner, J.A. (1994), “Percept-percept inflation in microorganizationalresearch: an investigation of prevalence and effect”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79No. 1, pp. 67-76.

Crow, M.S., Lee, C. and Joo, J. (2012), “Organizational justice and organizational commitmentamong South Korean police officers”, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies& Management, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 402-423.

Daus, C.S. and Ashkanasy, N.M. (2005), “The case for the ability based model of emotionalintelligence in organizational behavior”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26,pp. 453-466.

Davies, M., Stankov, L. and Roberts, R.D. (1998), “Emotional intelligence: in search of an elusiveconstruct”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 75 No. 4, pp. 989-1015.

Day, A.L. and Carroll, S.A. (2004), “Using an ability-based measure of emotional intelligence topredict individual performance, group performance and group citizenship behavior”,Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 36, pp. 1443-1458.

Devonish, D. and Greenidge, D. (2010), “The effect of organizational justice on contextualperformance, counterproductive work behavior and task performance: investigating themoderating role of ability-based emotional intelligence”, International Journal of Selectionand Assessment, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 75-86.

Di Fabio, A. and Palazzeschi, L. (2012), “Organizational justice: personality traits or emotionalintelligence? An empirical study in an Italian hospital context”, Journal of EmploymentCounseling, Vol. 49, pp. 31-42.

Doty, D.H. and Glick, W.H. (1998), “Common method bias: does common methods variance reallybias results?”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 374-406.

Dulewicz, V. and Higgs, M. (2004), “Can emotional intelligence be developed?”, InternationalJournal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 95-99.

Erkutlu, H. (2011), “The moderating role of organizational culture in the relationship betweenorganizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior”, Leadership &Organization Development Journal, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 532-554.

Farrell, D. and Rusbult, C.E. (1992), “Exploring the exit, voice, loyalty and neglect typology: theinfluence of job satisfaction, Quality of alternative and investment size”, EmployeeResponsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 201-218.

Fox, S., Spector, P.E. and Miles, D. (2001), “Counterproductive Work Behavior (CWB) in responseto job stressors and organizational justice: some mediator and moderator tests forautonomy and emotions”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 59, pp. 291-309.

452

ER35,4

Gallagher, E.N. and Vella-Brodrick, D.A. (2008), “Social support and emotional intelligenceas predictors of subjective well-being”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 44,pp. 1551-1561.

Gignac, G.E., Harmer, R.J., Jennings, S. and Palmer, B.R. (2012), “EI training and salesperformance during a corporate merger”, Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 19 No. 1,pp. 104-116.

Goleman, D. (1995), Working with Emotional Intelligence, Bantam Books, New York, NY.

Greenberg, J. (1990), “Organizational justice: yesterday, today and tomorrow”, Journal ofManagement, Vol. 16, pp. 399-432.

Groves, K.S., McEnrue, M.T. and Shen, W. (2008), “Developing and measuring the emotionalintelligence of leaders”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 225-250.

Harms, P.D. and Crede, M. (2010), “Emotional intelligence and transformational and transactionalleadership: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 17No. 1, pp. 5-17.

Hess, J.D. and Bacigalupo, A.C. (2011), “Enhancing decisions and decision-making processesthrough the application of emotional intelligence skills”, Management Decision, Vol. 49No. 5, pp. 710-721.

Hur, Y., van denBerg, P.T. and Wilderom, C.P.M. (2011), “Transformational leadership as amediator between emotional intelligence and team outcomes”, The Leadership Quarterly,Vol. 22, pp. 591-603.

Johnson, S.J. and Holdsworth, M.B.L. (2009), “Personality and health: the mediating role of traitemotional intelligence and work locus of control”, Personality and Individual Differences,Vol. 47, pp. 470-475.

Jordan, P.J. and Troth, A. (2011), “Emotional intelligence and leader member exchange”,Leadership and Organizational Journal, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 260-280.

Joseph, D.L. and Newman, D.A. (2010), “Emotional intelligence: an integrative meta-analysis andcascading model”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 1, pp. 54-78.

Kafetsios, K. and Zampetakis, L.A. (2008), “Emotional intelligence and job satisfaction: testingthe mediatory role of positive and negative affect at work”, Personality and IndividualDifferences, Vol. 44, pp. 712-722.

Kidwell, B., Hardesty, D.M., Murtha, B.R. and Sheng, S. (2011), “Emotional intelligence inmarketing exchanges”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 75, pp. 78-95.

Klendauer, R. and Deller, J. (2009), “Organizational justice and managerial commitment incorporate mergers”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 29-45.

Kluemper, D.H. (2008), “Trait emotional intelligence: the impact of core-self evaluation and socialdesirability”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 44, pp. 1402-1412.

Landy, F.J. (2005), “Some historical and scientific issues related to research on emotionalintelligence”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26, pp. 411-424.

Law, K.S., Wong, C.S. and Song, L.J. (2004), “The construct and criterion validity of emotionalintelligence and its potential utility for management studies”, Journal of AppliedPsychology, Vol. 89 No. 3, pp. 483-496.

Law, K.S., Wong, C., Huang, G. and Li, X. (2008), “The effects of emotional intelligence on jobperformance and life satisfaction for the research and development scientists in China”,Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 25, pp. 51-69.

Locke, E.A. (2005), “Why emotional intelligence is an invalid concept”, Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, Vol. 26, pp. 425-431.

Lopes, P.N., Salovey, P. and Straus, R. (2003), “Emotional intelligence, personality and the perceivedquality of social relationships”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 35, pp. 641-658.

453

Emotionalintelligence and

turnover

McEnrue, M.T., Groves, K.S. and Shen, W. (2009), “Emotional intelligence development:leveraging individual characteristics”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 28 No. 2,pp. 150-174.

Mayer, J.D. (2001), “Emotion, intelligence, and emotional intelligence”, in Forgas, J.P. (Ed.),Handbook of Affect and Social Cognition, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ,pp. 410-431, XVIII.

Mayer, J.D. and Salovey, P. (1997), “What is emotional intelligence?”, in Salovey, P. and Sluyter, D.J.(Eds), Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence, Basic Books, New York, NY,pp. 3-31.

Mayer, J.D., Caruso, D.R. and Salovey, P. (1999), “Emotional intelligence meets traditionalstandards for an intelligence”, Intelligence, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 267-298.

Mayer, J.D., Roberts, R.D. and Barsade, S.G. (2008), “Human abilities: emotional intelligence”,Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 59, pp. 507-536.

Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P. and Caruso, D.R. (2004a), “A further consideration of the issues ofemotional intelligence”, Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 249-255.

Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D.R. and Sitarenios, G. (2004b), “Emotional intelligence asa standard intelligence”, Emotion, Vol. 1, pp. 232-242.

Meisler, G. (2012), “Exploring emotional intelligence, political skill, and job satisfaction”,manuscript submitted for publication.

Meisler, G. and Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2012), “Perceived organizational politics, emotional intelligenceand work outcomes: empirical exploration of direct and indirect effects”, manuscriptsubmitted for publication.

Moorman, R.H. and Niehoff, B.P. (1998), “Does perceived organizational support mediate therelationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behavior?”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 351-357.

Nelis, D., Quoidbach, J., Mikolajczak, M. and Hansenne, M. (2009), “Increasing emotionalintelligence: (how) is it possible?”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 47,pp. 36-41.

Niehoff, B.P. and Moorman, R.H. (1993), “Justice as mediator of the relationship between methodsof monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior”, Academy of Management Journal,Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 527-556.

Nowakowski, J.M. and Conlon, D.E. (2005), “Organizational justice: looking back, lookingforward”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 4-29.

O’Boyle, E.H., Humphrey, R.H., Pollack, J.M., Hawver, T.H. and Story, P.A. (2010), “The relationbetween emotional intelligence and job performance: a meta-analysis”, Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, Vol. 32, pp. 788-818.

Palaiologos, A., Papazekos, P. and Panayotopoulou, L. (2011), “Organizational justice andemployee satisfaction in performance appraisal”, Journal of European Industrial Training.,Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 826-840.

Palmer, B., Donaldson, C. and Stough, C. (2002), “Emotional intelligence and life satisfaction”,Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 33, pp. 1091-1100.

Petrides, K.V., Perez-Gonzales, J.C. and Furnham, A. (2007), “On the criterion and incrementalvalidity of trait emotional intelligence”, Cognition and Emotion, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 26-55.

Petrides, K.V., Pita, R. and Kokkinaki, F. (2007), “The location of trait emotional intelligence inpersonality factor space”, British Journal of Psychology, Vol. 98, pp. 273-289.

Quebbeman, A.J. and Rozell, E.J. (2002), “Emotional intelligence and dispositional affectivity asmoderators of workplace aggression: the impact of behavior choice”, Human ResourceManagement Review, Vol. 12, pp. 125-143.

454

ER35,4

Salovey, P. and Mayer, J.D. (1990), “Emotional intelligence”, Imagination, Cognition and Personality,Vol. 9, pp. 185-211.

Salovey, P., Stroud, L.R., Woolery, A. and Epel, E.S. (2002), “Perceived emotional intelligence,stress reactivity and symptom reports: further explorations using the trait meta – moodscale”, Psychology and Health, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 611-627.

Shi, J. and Wang, L. (2007), “Validation of emotional intelligence scale in Chinese universitystudents”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 43, pp. 377-387.

Shrout, P.E. and Bolger, N. (2002), “Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: newprocedures and recommendations”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 422-445.

Song, L.J., Huang, G., Peng, K.Z., Law, K.S., Wong, C. and Chen, Z. (2010), “The differential effectsof general mental ability and emotional intelligence on academic performance and socialinteractions”, Intelligence, Vol. 38, pp. 137-143.

Spector, P.E. (2006), “Method variance in organizational research – truth or urban legend?”,Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 221-232.

Sy, T., Tram, S. and O’Hara, L.A. (2006), “Relation of employee and manager emotionalintelligence to job satisfaction and performance”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 68,pp. 461-473.

Thibaut, J. and Walker, L. (1975), Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis, Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, Hillsdale, NJ.

Thompson, B.L., Waltz, J., Croyle, K. and Pepper, A.C. (2007), “Trait meta-mood and affect aspredictors of somatic symptoms and life satisfaction”, Personality and IndividualDifferences, Vol. 43, pp. 1786-1795.

Vigoda-Gadot, E. and Meisler, G. (2010), “Emotions in management and the management ofemotions: the impact of emotional intelligence and organizational politics on public sectoremployees”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 70, pp. 72-86.

Wang, X., Liao, J., Xia, D. and Chang, T. (2010), “The impact of organizational justice on workperformance”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 660-677.

Whitman, D.S., Van Rooy, D.L., Viswesvaran, C. and Kraus, E. (2011), “Testing the second-orderfacture structure and measurement equivalence of the Wong and Law emotionalintelligence scale across gender and ethnicity”, Educational and PsychologicalMeasurement, Vol. 69 No. 6, pp. 1059-1074.

Wong, C.S. and Law, K.S. (2002), “The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence onperformance and attitude: an exploratory study”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 3,pp. 243-274.

Zampetakis, L.A. (2011), “Middle managers’ perception of subordinates’ customer orientation inthe banking sector”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 1033-1047.

Zampetakis, L.A., Beldekos, P. and Moustakis, V.S. (2009), “ ‘Day-to-Day’ entrepreneurship withinorganizations: the role of trait emotional intelligence and perceived organizationalsupport”, European Management Journal, Vol. 27, pp. 165-175.

Corresponding authorGalit Meisler can be contacted at: galit.meisler@pac.ac.il

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

455

Emotionalintelligence and

turnover