Forster

187
Article
Vision

The Relationship among Emotional

16(3) 187–199
© 2012 MDI
SAGE Publications
Intelligence and Outcome Variables: Los Angeles, London,
New Delhi, Singapore,

A Study of Indian Employees Washington DC

DOI: 10.1177/0972262912460155
http://vision.sagepub.com

Jiwan Jyoti Maini

Bhawdeep Singh
Parminder Kaur

Abstract
This study examined the relationship among four dimensions of emotional intelligence (EI) as predictor variables vis-à-vis five dimen-
sions of organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) and in-role behaviour (IRB) as criterion variables. Sample constituted of 250
superior–subordinate dyads working on technical and non-technical jobs in power plants in India. Canonical correlation analysis and
hierarchical multiple regression analysis have been applied to investigate the relationship between the two sets of variables. Demographic
variables have been controlled, to find the unique variance in the prediction of criterion variables. Significant relationship was found
between emotional intelligence dimensions and outcome variables with Rc = 0.569. Among the outcome variables, sportsmanship had
the highest canonical loading and IRB had the lowest canonical loading. Canonical loadings for predictor canonical variate were highest
for utilization of emotion and lowest for perception of emotion. Sensitivity analysis was carried out to validate the results obtained
through canonical correlation analysis by removing individual independent variable at a time. The results showed little difference,
indicating stability of the results. Overall the results established significant relationship among the predictor and criterion variables.
However, the dimensions of EI were better in predicting OCB dimensions as compared to IRB of the respondents.

Key Words
Emotional Intelligence, Organizational Citizenship Behaviour, In-Role Behaviour, Canonical Correlation Analysis, India

Introduction In order to be effective, the organizations should be able to

The concept of emotional intelligence (EI) has received a
lot of attention of the researchers in recent times. EI is the
awareness regarding one’s own emotions and about others
and being able to balance oneself in tricky situations involv-
ing emotional turmoil. Employees with high level of EI
can become the real assets of an organization. EI calls for
emotional balance and maturity in understanding self
and others, and applying it for enhancing interpersonal rela-
tionships. Due to economic downturn, today’s organiza-
tions are facing cut-throat competition from their rivals.
These organizations are vying with each other in the race to
become the market leader. In such a dynamic scenario, only
those organizations which possess the prized employees,
who are ready to work and sweat beyond the call of duty
will ultimately sail through this journey of trials and tribula-
tions. As such human resources of the organizations have
become the heart and soul of it. The need of the hour is to
identify such genre of employees, who could work as allies
with a feeling of belongingness towards the organization.
identify its true soulmates early in their journey towards
excellence. These soulmates could be emotionally intelli-
gent employees, who are willing to assist their peers with
work, ready to work beyond normal duties mentioned in job
descriptions, orient new employees, speak positively about
the organization to the outsiders, and follow the organiza-
tional rules and regulations even when nobody is there to
watch them. Organizational citizenship behaviours (OCBs)
are a special type of work behaviour that are defined as indi-
vidual behaviours which are beneficial to the organization
and are discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized
by the formal reward system. OCBs are thought to have an
important impact on the effectiveness (Moorman, 1991;
Niehoff, 2005; Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1994; Walz and
Niehoff, 2000; Yen and Niehoff, 2004) and efficiency of
work teams and organizations, therefore, contributing to the
overall productivity of the organization. In such a situation,
the million dollar question is where to find such kind of
employees? Employees who can empathize with the organi-
zations and their superiors; who understand their own self

Downloaded from vis.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 3, 2015

188 The Relationship among Emotional Intelligence and Outcome Variables
and others, that is, emotionally intelligent employees could
be the probable answer to this question. Those who are high
in EI possess greater empathy; understand their own
emotions and that of others much better, which could
lead to good interpersonal relations, that is, relations with
peers, seniors, subordinates and customers of the organiza-
tion. This social exchange is also guided by the EI of the
leaders involved, resulting in extra role behaviour of the
employees (Wong and Law, 2002). Katz and Kahn (1978)
partitioned the job performance by segregating it as in-role
performance, that is, consistently meeting or exceeding
standards of performance prescribed by organizational
roles. This in-role performance is an important aspect
of individual performance and should be taken note of
vis-à-vis contextual performance. Emotionally intelligent
employees could display greater sensitivity in interpersonal
relations leading to OCB and in-role behaviour (IRB). This
premise has to be further validated through empirical stud-
ies, and our paper is an attempt to take up this call to bridge
up the gap.
Theoretical Framework of the Study
Emotional Intelligence
Emotional intelligence has its roots in the concept of ‘social
intelligence’ that was first identified by Thorndike in 1920.
Thorndike defined social intelligence as the ability to
understand and manage men and women, boys and girls—
to act wisely in human relations. Following Thorndike,
Gardner (1983) included social intelligence as one of the
seven intelligence domains in his theory of multiple
intelligences. According to Gardner, social intelligence
comprises a person’s interpersonal and intrapersonal intel-
ligences. Intrapersonal intelligence relates to one’s intelli-
gence in dealing with oneself, and is the ability to identify
and discriminate among complex set of feelings. In con-
trast, interpersonal intelligence relates to one’s intelligence
in dealing with others and is the ability to perceive and
make distinctions among other individuals and, in particu-
lar, among their moods, temperaments, motivations and
intentions. Salovey and Mayer (1990) were amongst the
earliest to propose the name ‘emotional intelligence’ to
represent the ability of people to deal with their emotions.
EI as originally conceptualized by Salovey and Mayer
(1990, p. 10) ‘involves the ability to perceive accurately,
appraise, and express emotion; the ability to access and/or
generate feelings when they facilitate thought; the ability
to understand emotion and emotional knowledge; and
the ability to regulate emotions to promote emotional and
intellectual growth’. There are two models of EI—one is
referred to as an ability model and the other as a mixed
model. The ability model defines EI as a type of intelli-
gence, whereas the mixed model is more dispositional or
Vision, 16, 3 (2012): 187–199
Downloaded from vis.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 3, 2015
trait-based in nature (Petrides and Furnham, 2001) with
less of a cognitive emphasis. Mayer and Salovey (1997)
suggested that there are individual differences in EI
relating to differences in our ability to appraise our own
emotions and those of others. They further suggested that
individuals higher in EI might be more open to internal
experience and better able to label and communicate
those experiences. In 1995, Goleman adopted Salovey and
Mayer’s definition, and proposed that EI involves abilities
that can be categorized as self awareness, managing emo-
tions, motivating oneself, empathy and handling relation-
ships. In 1997, Mayer and Salovey came out with the
improved definition of EI as the ability to perceive emo-
tions, to access and generate emotions so as to assist
thought, to understand emotions and emotional knowl-
edge, and to effectively regulate emotions so as to promote
emotional and intellectual growth. Apart from the models
given by Mayer and Salovey and Daniel Goleman, an
another model of EI proposed by Bar-On (1997) defined
EI as an array of non-cognitive capabilities, competencies
and skills that influence one’s ability to succeed in coping
with environmental demands and pressures. Based on the
work of Salovey and Mayer (1990), Schutte et al. (1998),
developed trait model of EI consisting of four dimensions;
which also found support through the empirical work of
Ciarrochi, Chan and Caputi (2000); Ciarrochi, Chan and
Bajgar (2001).
1. Perception of Emotion (POE). This relates to the
ability to distinguish one’s own and others’ emo-
tions based on situational and meaningful non-
verbal cues. It is based on the individual’s ability to
understand their innate emotions and expressing
them naturally.
2. Managing Own Emotions (MOE). This involves the
capacity for regulating one’s own distressful emo-
tions by using self-regulatory strategies, which will
enable more rapid recovery from psychological
distress.
3. Managing Others’ Emotions (MOtE). This implies
arranging events that others will enjoy and coping
with negative emotions in order to avoid hurting
others’ feelings and making others feel better when
they feel low.
4. Utilization of Emotion (UOE). This relates to the
ability of individuals to channelize their emotions
by directing them towards beneficial activities and
personal performance.
Organizational Citizenship Behaviour
A new construct forayed into the field of organizational sci-
ences: organizational citizenship behaviour (Bateman and
Organ, 1983; Smith et al., 1983). OCBs are work behaviours
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, Bhawdeep Singh and Parminder Kaur 189
that are defined as discretionary, not related to the formal
organizational reward system, and taken together to promote
the organizational effectiveness (Moorman, 1991; Niehoff,
2005; Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1994; Walz and Niehoff,
2000; Yen and Niehoff, 2004). It is a kind of performance
which is known as non-task performance. It is also called
as extra-role behaviour (Van Dyne et al., 1995)/prosocial
behaviour (Brief and Motowidlo, 1986; George, 1990, 1991;
George and Bettenhausen, 1990; O’Reilly and Chatman,
1986)/contextual performance (Borman et al., 1995; Borman
and Motowidlo, 1997; Motowidlo and Van Scotter, 1994)/
organizational spontaneity (George and Brief, 1992; George
and Jones, 1997) as it was not prescribed by the job contract
per se. Katz (1964) asserted that an organization which
depends solely on its blueprints of prescribed behaviour is
a very fragile social system. He went on to describe five
behaviours not specified by role prescriptions that, neverthe-
less, facilitate the accomplishment of organizational goals.
Employees engage in these kinds of behaviour which are
discretionary and considered to be over and above the job
contract. Chattopadhyay (1999) suggested that the OCB has
already become a crucial factor of influence on the develop-
ment and survival of an organization.
By 1988, the formal definition of OCB emerged that has
since become the one which is most formally recognized
and widely quoted: ‘Individual behaviour that is discre-
tionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal
reward system and that in the aggregate promotes the
effective functioning of the organization’ (Organ, 1988,
p. 4). Organ then went on to define the term ‘discretionary’
as behaviour that is not an enforceable contractual require-
ment of the employee by the employer, but is rather a mat-
ter of personal preference, where it is generally understood
that its omission is not punishable (Organ, 1988). Building
on the work of Organ (1988), Podsakoff, Mackenzie,
Moorman and Fetter (1990) identified the following five
major dimensions of OCB:
1. Altruism: Discretionary behaviours on the part of
employees that have the effect of helping a specific
other person with organizationally relevant task or
problem.
2. Conscientiousness: Discretionary behaviours on the
part of employee that go well beyond the minimum
role requirements of the organization in the areas of
attendance, obeying rules and regulations, taking
breaks and so forth.
3. Sportsmanship: Willingness of the employee to
tolerate less than ideal circumstances without
complaining—to ‘avoid complaining, petty griev-
ances, railing against real or imagined slights, and
making federal cases out of small potatoes’ (Organ,
1988).
Downloaded from vis.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 3, 2015
4. Courtesy: Discretionary behaviour that refers to
touching the base with those parties whose work
would be affected by one’s decisions or commit-
ments. It is aimed at preventing the occurrence of
work-related problems with others.
5. Civic Virtue: Initially identified by Graham (1986).
It is the final form mentioned by Organ (1988). This
form refers to responsibly participating in the politi-
cal life of the organization. Behaviour on the part of
an individual that indicates that he/she responsibly
participates in meetings, is involved in, or is con-
cerned about the life of the company (Podsakoff
et al., 1990).
Emotional Intelligence and Outcome Variables
Just a few handful of empirical studies have been there
to examine the relationship between the EI and outcome
variables. Attempts to empirically test the relationship
between EI and other outcome variables have, however,
been limited and require further input to examine and
establish the relationship. Charbonneau and Nicol (2002)
explored the relationship between EI and prosocial behav-
iours in adolescents. The study was conducted in an army
camp and findings were that EI was positively related
to altruism and civic virtue, but sportsmanship did not
correlate significantly with EI in their sample. Carmeli
(2003) further explored the relationship between EI and
OCB. EI and altruistic dimension of OCB were strongly
and positively related (β = 0.54, p < 0.001). This relation-
ship was further assessed by Carmeli and Josman (2006) in
Israel by including task performance along with OCBs.
Positive relations between EI and employee’s work out-
comes (altruism, compliance and task performance) were
established.
The study conducted by Singh (2007) deals with two
important variables, EI and organizational leadership, in an
Indian context in a software organization. Modassir and
Singh (2008) investigated the relationship of EI with trans-
formational leadership and OCB. EI was significantly
correlated to conscientiousness, civic virtue and altruistic
behaviour (dimensions of OCB) of followers. The results
indicated that EI of leaders enhances the OCB of followers.
Jain (2009) examined the predictive ability of OCB and EI
with regard to organizationally relevant criterion variables.
Results indicated that OCB was relatively more powerful
predictor of outcome variables as compared to EI in Indian
work context. However, in this study a self-report measure
of OCB had been used that may inflate the results because
of high social desirability effect. Cichy, Kim and Cha
(2009) examined the relationship between EI and contex-
tual performance through a Web-based survey. Results
obtained through canonical correlation analysis indicated
Vision, 16, 3 (2012): 187–199
190 The Relationship among Emotional Intelligence and Outcome Variables
that there is positive relationship (Rc = 0.571) between EI
scores and contextual performance. A major limitation of
this study was reliance on self-evaluation of EI and contex-
tual performance.
Significance of the Study
This study advances the literature pertaining to EI by empir-
ically demonstrating the impact of dimensions of EI on
work-related performance and contextual performance of
the participants. This study aims to contribute towards the
nitty gritty of employee behaviour by breaking down EI
construct and outcome variables into their sub-components
to have better insights. This study countered the criticism of
self-report measurements by employing evaluator ratings of
OCB and IRB. That is, unlike the previous studies which
relied on self-report evaluation of these measures, our study
employed the dyadic design to counter the problem of com-
mon method variance. Therefore, more stringent method
has been deployed by having superior rated performance to
examine the impact of EI dimensions on employees’
outcome variables. Earlier studies on examination of the
relationship between these constructs lacked the analysis
on the basis of dimensions (Carmeli, 2003; Charbonneau
and Nicol, 2002; Modassir and Singh, 2008) and only used
Figure 1. Proposed Research Model
Perception of
Emotion
Manage Own
Emotion
Emotional
Intelligence
Manage Others’
Emotion
Utilization of
Emotion
Vision, 16, 3 (2012): 187–199
Downloaded from vis.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 3, 2015
composite score of EI for the analysis. The sole study of
Cichy et al. (2009) had explored the relationship between
dimensions of EI and contextual performance; hence, it
requires further input and empirical support through the
present study, which takes into consideration the dimen-
sions of OCB as well as IRB of the respondents.
Objectives
The main objective of this study is to assess the relationship
between four dimensions of EI vis-à-vis two outcome vari-
ables, that is, five dimensions of OCB and IRB of the
respondents. This study intends to examine the relationship
between the stated constructs and aims to find out the dimen-
sions which have strong influence on the employees’ out-
come variables in the Indian scenario. Figure 1 shows the
proposed research model framed for the study, to be tested
through canonical correlation analysis. Independent varia-
bles for the study are the four dimensions of EI as suggested
by Schutte et al. (1998), namely, Perception of Emotion
(POE), Managing Own Emotions (MOE), Managing Others’
Emotions (MOtE) and Utilization of Emotion (UOE).
Altruism, sportsmanship, conscientiousness, courtesy and
civic virtue, five dimensions of OCB scale, and IRB are the
dependent variables included as outcome variables.
Altruism
Sportsmanship
Conscientiousness
Courtesy
Outcome
Variables
Civic Virtue
In-Role Behaviour
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, Bhawdeep Singh and Parminder Kaur 191
Hypothesis
Taking insight from the earlier studies (Carmeli and Josman,
2006; Cichy et al., 2009) and based on the objective of the
present study, following hypotheses have been formulated:
Hypothesis 1: There is positive relationship between
four dimensions of EI (POE, MOE,
MOtE, UOE) and six outcome variables
(altruism, sportsmanship, conscientious-
ness, courtesy, civic virtue and IRB).
Hypothesis 2: POE, MOE, MOtE and UOE (dimen-
sions of EI) are the predictor variables
for dimensions of OCB and IRB after
controlling for demographic variables of
designation, education level, experience,
age and income.
Methodology
Sample
The study had been conducted in two units of power plants
of north India operating under the same management. Data
were collected from 250 superior–subordinate dyads con-
sisting of technical and non-technical employees of the
power plants. Two hundred employees were working on
technical jobs and 50 were non-technical employees, work-
ing on clerical jobs in the same organization. The sample
consisted of 231 males and 19 females having mean age of
45 years ranging from 25 years to 57 years; average job
experience of the respondents was 21 years ranging from
1 year to 37 years; 242 respondents were married and
8 unmarried; 107 respondents reported their spouses’ status
as working and 135 males had reported it as homemakers;
194 respondents had two to three dependents and 180
respondents possessed highest educational qualification of
bachelor’s degree or above.
Instruments
Three instruments have been used for the purpose of the
study. They are:
1. Self-report emotional intelligence test developed by
Schutte et al. (1998) has been used in the study. It
contains 33 items to be rated on a five point Likert-
type scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to
5 = strongly agree. Schutte et al. (1998) reported
good internal consistency (α = 0.90) and good test–
retest reliability (r = 0.78) for the scale, when admin-
istered to the adults. Furthermore, the instrument
demonstrated good predictive and discriminant
validity. Moreover, this measure is brief and based
Downloaded from vis.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 3, 2015
on the conceptual model of Salovey and Mayer
(1990). Use of this scale has also been recommended
by Abraham (1999). This scale has also been used
with success among Indian samples (Kadam et al.,
2011; Modassir and Singh, 2008). Some of the items
of these measures have been modified so that their
sense is properly conveyed to the respondents. These
changes were made after conducting a pilot survey to
obtain meaningful surveys to enhance the reliability
of the study. Moreover, studies that evaluated the
measure of Schutte and her colleagues (1998) in both
adult and adolescents population indicated, that
this measure seems to overcome the observed diffi-
culties in other measures of emotional intelligence
(Ciarrochi et al., 2001, 2002). Factor analytic studies
have established that all the items load significantly
on a single factor (Schutte et al., 1998), which is
called as overall EI. Another study has established
that overall EI can be further broken down into four
factors (Ciarrochi et al., 2002; Petrides and Furnham,
2000). The perception of emotion factor (10 items)
consisting of statements such as ‘I find it hard to
understand the non-verbal messages of other people’
and ‘I am aware of my emotions as I experience
them.’ Manage own emotion factor (nine items) con-
sists of items such as ‘I motivate myself by imagin-
ing a good outcome of the tasks I take on’ and ‘I seek
out activities that make me happy.’ Manage others’
emotion factor (eight items) consists of such items
such as ‘I arrange events others enjoy’ and ‘I compli-
ment others when they have done something well.’
This third factor might also be labelled social skills
(Petrides and Furnham, 2000), but as labelled by
Schutte and her colleagues, it is named here as man-
aging own emotions. The fourth factor utilization of
emotion (six items) consists of items such as ‘When
I feel a change in emotion, I tend to come up with
new ideas’ and ‘When I am in positive mood, solving
problems is easy for me.’ In the present study these
four factors have been used for dimensional analysis
as predictor variables. Whether EI should be self-
reported or other-reported has to be decided for the
purpose of the current study. Many emotion research-
ers have identified that EI (Connolly et al., 2007) and
emotion in general (Watson and Clark, 1991) may
best be measured with self-report measure as the
experience of emotion is generally personal and not
necessarily externally observable by others.
2. OCB scale developed by Podsakoff et al. (1990),
following recommendations of Schwab (1980) and
Churchill (1979), has been used in the study. It con-
sists of 24 items measuring OCB of employees, on a
seven point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly
Vision, 16, 3 (2012): 187–199
192 The Relationship among Emotional Intelligence and Outcome Variables
disagree to 7 = strongly agree. It measures altruism,
conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy and
civic virtue dimensions of OCB. This scale has also
been used by the Indian researchers (Modassir and
Singh, 2008). Altruism (five items) consisted of
items like ‘This employee helps others who have
heavy work load’ and ‘This employee helps others
who have been absent.’ Sportsmanship (five items)
consisted of sample items ‘This employee consumes
lot of time complaining about trivial matters’
and ‘This employee always find fault with what
the organization is doing.’ Conscientiousness
(five items) consisted of sample items such as ‘This
employee does not take extra breaks’ and ‘This
employee obeys the organization’s rules and regula-
tions even when no one is watching.’ Courtesy (five
items) had sample items like ‘This employee does
not abuse the rights of others’ and ‘This employee
considers the impact of his/her actions on cowork-
ers.’ Civic virtue (four items) consisted of sample
items like ‘This employee keeps abreast of changes
in the organization’ and ‘This employee attends
meetings that are not mandatory but are considered
important.’
3. IRB scale developed by Williams and Anderson
(1991) has been used in the study. It is a seven item
scale measuring IRB on seven point Likert scale
ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly
agree. It included two reverse coded items. These
items intended to measure the degree to which an
employee meets and fulfils basic job demands. The
sample items included ‘Adequately completes
assigned duties’ and ‘Neglects aspects of the job he/
she is obligated to perform.’ Psychometric proper-
ties and scale reliabilities of over 0.80 of this scale
were reported by Mackenzie, Podsakoff and Fetter
(1993) and Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1994).
Control Variables
We controlled for (a) Designation, (b) Education level,
(c) Experience measured in number of years, (d) Age of the
respondent in completed years and (e) Income.
As the vast majority of the respondents were male and
married, the gender and marital status had not been con-
trolled for the hierarchical regression analysis.
Procedure
The survey instruments were personally distributed in vari-
ous departments and collected in the next visit. EI of the
respondent is self-reported and OCB as well as IRB of the
respondent have been reported by their superior. The study
Vision, 16, 3 (2012): 187–199
Downloaded from vis.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 3, 2015
employed dyadic design in order to remove the same source
bias. The questionnaires filled by the subordinate were then
matched with that of their superior’s ratings and pairs/
dyads were made. The questionnaires which were either
self-reported or superior-rated only, were excluded as their
matching pairs cannot be formed. Personal information
was also gathered from the respondents, including their
names, age, gender, educational level, work experience,
income category, marital status, working status of spouse
and number of dependents. However, respondents were
assured of keeping their responses confidential.
Scoring and Data Analysis
Scoring was done as per the instructions mentioned in the
Schutte, Malouff and Bhullar (2009) for SSREIT and for
outcome variables as per Organ, Podsakoff and MacKenzie
(2006), and the raw scores were tabulated. The focus of
this study is on the aggregate; hence unit of analysis is the
employees working in the power plant, not the individual
respondent. After tabulating the responses in the data sheet,
reliability analysis, canonical correlation analysis and hier-
archical regression analysis were conducted to examine
the relationships. SPSS version 18 was used for the data
analysis. To assess the relationship between dimensions of
EI and outcome variables, series of separate hierarchical
regression analysis were performed for each criterion
variable. Each model had two steps (Table 3). In the first
step, control variables were entered and in the second step,
model variables were entered by using the Enter method.
Canonical correlation analysis was conducted by typing
the syntax for MANOVA with Discrim command and can-
corr syntax was used to run the analysis.
Results
Table 1 lists the means, standard deviations, correlation
coefficients and reliability coefficients of the variables
used in the analysis. Though several variables are related,
Table 1 indicates no severe problems of multicollinearity
as none of the related variables exceeded the value of
0.60 for the correlation coefficients. Table 1 lays down a
preliminary foundation for the significant relationships
among dimensions of EI, OCB dimensions and IRB. The
figures in parentheses on the diagonal report the Cronbach
alpha coefficient for the instruments used in the analysis.
All the alpha coefficients ranged from 0.71 to 0.80, which
is more than the 0.70 of the threshold limit, considered
adequate for the reliability of the instrument (Cronbach,
1951; Nunnally, 1978). Among criterion variables sports-
manship had the highest mean of 5.69, while among the
predictor variables UOE had the highest mean of 3.99. The
lowest means among criterion variables was 5.29 for civic
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, Bhawdeep Singh and Parminder Kaur 193

Table 1. Mean, Standard Deviations, Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient and Intercorrelationsa among Variables (N = 250)

Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
  1.  Altruism 5.51 0.62 (0.72)
  2.  Sportsmanship 5.67 0.83 0.121 (0.76)
  3.  Conscientiousness 5.65 0.56 0.495** 0.056 (0.80)
  4.  Courtesy 5.48 0.56 0.395** −0.066 0.612** (0.72)
  5.  Civic Virtue 5.29 0.59 0.396** −0.057 0.470** 0.350** (0.71)
  6.  In-Role Behaviour 5.72 0.56 0.262**   0.099 0.364** 0.224** 0.241** (0.73)
  7.  Perception of Emotion 3.61 0.38 0.120   0.189** 0.154* 0.162* 0.144* −0.016 (0.72)
  8.  Manage Own Emotion 3.91 0.36 0.197**   0.298** 0.275** 0.250** 0.231** 0.174** 0.391** (0.74)
  9.  Manage Others’ Emotion 3.82 0.34 0.133*   0.296** 0.131* 0.207** 0.179** 0.213** 0.208** 0.323** (0.75)
10.  Utilization of Emotion 3.99 0.46 0.280**   0.297** 0.235** 0.273** 0.213** 0.157* 0.118* 0.415** 0.380** (0.79)
Notes: aTwo-tailed tests. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, N = 250, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients listed on diagonal, in parentheses.

virtue and among predictor variables perception of emo-
tion had mean of 3.61.
Before the analysis was conducted, the variables were
examined to be free from the problem of multicollinearity
and homoscedasticity. The objective of the study was to
assess the relationship between two variable sets as per
Figure 1. As the predictor and criterion variables were mul-
tiple, canonical correlation analysis was conducted to test
the proposed relationship. Canonical correlation analysis is
a multivariate statistical model that facilitates the study of
interrelationships among multiple predictor variables and
multiple criterion variables. Initially the proposed research
model in Figure 1 was examined through four predictor
variables and six criterion variables. A canonical correla-
tion analysis was conducted using four EI dimensions
(POE, MOE, MOtE, UOE) as predictors of the six outcome
variables (altruism, sportsmanship, conscientiousness,
courtesy, civic virtue and IRB) to evaluate the multivariate
shared relationship between the two sets of variables.
The analysis yielded four functions, of which only first
was found to be statistically significant. Collectively
the full model in Table 2 was statistically significant for

Table 2. Analysis of Canonical Correlation Rresults

Sensitivity Analysis
Results after Removal/Deletion of
Results with all Variables POE MOE MOtE UOE
Canonical Correlation (RC) 0.569 0.562 0.541 0.539 0.525
Eigenvalue 0.478 0.461 0.413 0.410 0.380
Wilks 0.630 0.653 0.668 0.685 0.689
F statistic 4.964 6.155 5.820 5.429 5.334
P value 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Canonical
Criterion Variables Canonical Loadings Cross Loadings Canonical Loadings
Altruism 0.484 0.275 0.478 0.502 0.540 0.396
Sportsmanship 0.694 0.395 0.692 0.695 0.676 0.704
Conscientiousness 0.510 0.290 0.504 0.469 0.571 0.491
Courtesy 0.576 0.328 0.570 0.579 0.596 0.547
Civic Virtue 0.490 0.279 0.486 0.477 0.503 0.491
IRB 0.380 0.216 0.421 0.346 0.316 0.422
Shared Variance 0.282 0.283 0.273 0.297 0.269
Redundancy Index 0.091 0.089 0.80 0.086 0.074
Canonical
Predictor Variables Canonical Loadings Cross Loadings Canonical Loadings
POE 0.460 0.262 NA 0.263 0.505 0.485
MOE 0.763 0.434 0.771 NA 0.805 0.827
MOtE 0.711 0.404 0.727 0.403 NA 0.786
UOE 0.782 0.445 0.789 0.447 0.829 NA
Shared Variance 0.478 0.582 0.351 0.530 0.512
Redundancy Index 0.155 0.184 0.102 0.154 0.141
Note: N
 = 250, IRB = In-Role Behaviour, POE = Perception of Emotion, MOE = Manage Own Emotion, MOtE = Manage Others’ Emotion, UOE =
Utilization of Emotion.

Vision, 16, 3 (2012): 187–199

Downloaded from vis.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 3, 2015

194 The Relationship among Emotional Intelligence and Outcome Variables
canonical function, using the Wilks λ = 0.630, F (24,
838.47) = 4.964, p < 0.001. As Wilks λ represents the vari-
ance unexplained by the model, 1 − λ yields the full model
effect size in r2 metric. Thus, for the first canonical func-
tion, the r2 type effect size was 0.324, which indicates that
the full model explained a substantial portion of about 32
per cent of the variance shared between the canonical vari-
ates, which are sets of criterion and predictor variables.
Canonical loadings, also called canonical structure
correlations, and cross loadings have been used in this anal-
ysis as they are superior to canonical weights, which are
criticized because of their instability (Hair et al., 1998).
Canonical loadings reflect the variance that the observed
variable shares with the canonical variate (latent variable).
Thus, it computes within-set variable-to-variate correlation.
The larger the coefficient, the more it contributes in deriv-
ing the canonical variate. The values of multivariate tests
(Hotelling’s trace = 0.552 with F(24,954) = 5.488 (p <
0.001), Pillai’s criterion = 0.395 with F (24,972) = 4.437 (p
< 0.001), and Roys gcr = 0.324) showed that canonical cor-
relation analysis is significant in the present analysis. Table
2 showed significant positive canonical correlation Rc =
0.569, p < 0.001. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 is supported that
there is positive relationship between the predictor and
criterion variables. Sportsmanship and courtesy have the
highest canonical loadings of 0.694 and 0.576, respectively,
among the criterion variables. UOE and MOE emerged
with the largest canonical loadings of 0.782 and 0.763,
respectively, for the predictor canonical variate. IRB and
POE had the lowest canonical loadings (0.380 and 0.460)
and cross loadings (0.216 and .262) among criterion and
predictor variable sets. Moreover, canonical cross loadings
have also been taken into consideration to interpret the
results, which correlate each of the original observed crite-
rion variables directly with the predictor canonical variate,
and vice versa. The cross loadings of criterion variable
from this analysis indicate that sportsmanship and courtesy
have the largest canonical cross loadings of 0.395 and
0.328 respectively, while the cross loadings of predictor
set revealed the highest loading of 0.445 and 0.434 for UOE
and MOE respectively. Thus, the cross loadings revealed
that the results are in parity with the canonical loadings, for
both the canonical variates as listed in Table 2.
Shared variance has been calculated separately for two
canonical variates, which shows the amount of variation in
each of the criterion variables explained by the criterion
canonical variate and vice versa. Shared variance for the
criterion canonical variate and predictor canonical variate
is 0.282 and 0.478 respectively. The redundancy index pre-
sented in the table is 0.091 and 0.155 for the criterion and
predictor canonical variates respectively, which indicates
the amount of mean variance of the variable of one set that
is explained by the other set.
Vision, 16, 3 (2012): 187–199
Downloaded from vis.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 3, 2015
Furthermore, to assess the stability of the canonical
loadings and for the validation of the results, sensitivity
analysis was conducted by removing one individual pre-
dictor variable from the analysis at a time. As per the sen-
sitivity analysis in Table 2, the canonical loadings in the
present study are remarkably stable and consistent in each
of the four cases, when a predictor variable is removed
from the analysis. Overall canonical correlation also
remained stable ranging from 0.525 to 0.562 depicting a
fair degree of stability.
The sensitivity analysis was also conducted by removal
of individual criterion variable to validate the results
obtained through canonical correlation analysis. The
results of canonical correlation (Rc) after removal of IRB,
civic virtue, courtesy, conscientiousness, sportsmanship
and altruism were 0.566, 0.545, 0.526, 0.568, 0.404 and
0.568 respectively. These values were also quite stable,
except for the Rc, when sportsmanship variable had been
dropped from the canonical correlation analysis, its value
plummeted to 0.404, a drop of nearly 0.165.
Hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to find
the support for Hypothesis 2. Designation, educational
level, experience, age and income of the respondents were
controlled in the study. Table 3 depicts the hierarchical
regression analysis results. In Step 1, control variables
were entered and in Step 2, predictor variables, that is, four
dimensions of emotional intelligence, were entered to pre-
dict the outcome variables. These results indicated that
for the prediction of altruism, 8.4 per cent (p ≤ 0.001) of
variance was explained by dimensions of emotional intel-
ligence. Utilization of emotion dimension had the largest
positive β = 0.26 (p ≤ 0.001) for its prediction. For the pre-
diction of conscientiousness, the model explained 10.1 per
cent (p ≤ 0.001) of the variance and here also utilization
of emotion had the largest positive β = 0.21 (p ≤ 0.001)
followed by manage own emotion dimension with β = 0.15
(p ≤ 0.05). For the prediction of sportsmanship, the model
explained 15.1 per cent (p ≤ 0.001) of the variance, over
and above the control variables. MOtE (β = 0.17, p ≤ 0.01),
UOE (β = 0.16, p ≤ 0.05) and MOE (β = 0.15, p ≤ 0.05)
were together found to be statistically significant predic-
tors for the prediction of sportsmanship. The model for the
prediction of courtesy explained 11.8 per cent (p ≤ 0.001)
of the variance and only UOE was statistically significant
(β = 0.25, p ≤ 0.001) as a predictor variable. Model for the
prediction of civic virtue had 8.6 per cent (p ≤ 0.001) of the
unique variance explained by UOE (β = 0.16, p ≤ 0.001)
and MOE (β = 0.13, p ≤ 0.10) dimensions of EI. In all
these hierarchical models, the lowest variance (∆R2 = .066,
p ≤ 0.001) was for the prediction of IRB after controlling
for effect of demographic variables. For the prediction
of IRB, MOtE (β = 0.18, p ≤ 0.01) and POE (β = 0.12,
p ≤ 0.10) were found to be relevant. Hence, Hypothesis 2 is
 Table 3. Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis: The Influence of Emotional Intelligence Dimensions on Altruism, Conscientiousness, Sportsmanship, Courtesy, Civic
Virtue and In-Role Behaviour

Altruism Conscientiousness Sportsmanship Courtesy Civic Virtue In-Role Behaviour

Predictor Variables å β (t) β (t) β (t) β (t) β (t) β (t)
Step 1 Control variables
Designation −0.147 (−0.1.260) −0.094 (0.828) 0.05 (0.041) 0.074 (0.640) 0.087 (0.733) −0.203 (−1.717)
Education level −0.045 (−.609) 0.153 (2.131**) 0.047 (0.627) 0.092 (1.248) 0.029 (0.382) 0.077 (1.028)
Experience −0.398 (−1.792*) 0.564 (2.606***) −0.332 (−0.1460) 0.107 (0.481) 0.298 (1.316) −0.177 (−0.785)
Age   0.193 (0.872) −0.595 (−2.761***) 0.300 (1.325) −0.189 (−0.858) −0.340 (−1.510) 0.075 (0.333)
Income   0.318 (2.714***) 0.259 (2.273**) −0.076 (−0.630) 0.119 (1.015) 0.023 (0.189) 0.263 (2.207)
R2   0.060**** 0.110**** 0.015 0.067*** .026 .033

Step 2 Perception of emotion   0.048 (0.734) 0.053 (0.837) 0.078 (1.213) 0.062 (0.965) 0.055 (0.830) −0.120 (−1.781*)
Manage own emotion   0.061 (0.835) 0.145 (2.070**) 0.150 (2.082**) 0.090 (1.262) 0.128 (1.718*) 0.117 (1.557)
Manage others’ emotion −0.009 (−0.133) 0.006 (0.101) 0.165 (2.509***) 0.071 (1.085) 0.072 (1.064) 0.176 (2.572***)
Utilization of emotion   0.257 (3.614****) 0.212 (3.107****) 0.157 (2.245**) 0.245 (3.532****) 0.155 (2.137***) 0.055 (0.761)
∆ R2 0.084**** 0.101**** 0.151**** 0.118**** 0.086**** 0.066****

Downloaded from vis.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 3, 2015

F for ∆ R2 5.921**** 7.712**** 10.830**** 8.707**** 5.836**** 4.396****
R2 for total equation 0.145**** 0.212**** 0.165**** 0.185**** 0.112**** 0.099****
Notes: *p ≤ 0.10, **p ≤ 0.05, ***p ≤ 0.01, ****p ≤ 0.001.
196 The Relationship among Emotional Intelligence and Outcome Variables
also fully supported, as four dimensions of EI predict the
outcome variables, after controlling for the demographic
variables.
Discussion
The major goal of this study was to examine the extent to
which EI dimensions augment the outcome variables, both
in-role behaviour as well as extra-role behaviour. The
results of canonical correlation analysis (Table 2) and
hierarchical regression analysis (Table 3) supported both
the hypotheses formulated for this research. The entire
variables in the criterion set and the predictor set were
found to be positively related through preliminary support
provided by correlations (Table 1), canonical correlation
analysis (Table 2) and hierarchical regression (Table 3).
The canonical correlation obtained in the present analy-
sis is quite similar to what was obtained by Cichy et al.
(2009). Further studies can be taken up to validate this
relationship.
An important finding of this study was that dimensions
of EI were more powerful as predictors of OCB dimen-
sions, as compared to the prediction of IRB. Moreover, an
interesting finding to be seen from Table 3 is that UOE,
which was found to have significant impact for prediction
of all OCB dimensions, was insignificant as a predictor of
IRB. However, POE dimension which was not statistically
significant in the prediction of all OCB dimensions was
relevant for the prediction of IRB. These findings were
also validated by the results as per Table 3, listing lowest
canonical loadings and cross loadings for IRB in the crite-
rion set. IRB consistently had lowest canonical loading
and cross loadings in the criterion canonical variate during
the sensitivity analysis conducted by dropping one predic-
tor variable. It implies that emotional intelligence dimen-
sions are better at predicting OCB dimensions as compared
to IRB.
These findings are critical for the organizations which
recognize the crucial role human resources can play to
make the organizations succeed even during the rough
weather. We found that in Indian scenario, sportsmanship
emerged as the most important dimension, during the
canonical correlation analysis and this outcome was further
sustained by the results of the hierarchical regression anal-
ysis. While interpreting these results, it should be taken
note of that all the items in the sportsmanship were reverse
coded; it might have caused the superiors to take a strong
stand against negatively worded statements. Moreover, the
status of the power plants has undergone change, as earlier
these were under the control of the state government, but
its status was converted to that of a corporation afterwards.
The employees, who staged dharnas and opposed this deci-
sion of the government, had later taken a soft stand for their
Vision, 16, 3 (2012): 187–199
Downloaded from vis.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 3, 2015
organization which was giving them more than bread
and butter. The data were collected from the employees
after a year of such status conversion. From this study, it
seems that employees have accepted the change
without any bickering. This implies that emotionally
intelligent employees are not just the fair weather friends,
but they are ready to stand by the organization through
the thick and thin. However, it entails that emotionally
intelligent employees in this sample were taking minor
hardships or inconveniences in their stride. The reason
underlying this could be the impact of Indian culture,
in which Indian employees prefer more directive, task-
oriented style of leadership (Ilangovan et al., 2007).
Directive leadership style in India breeds on the premise
that the leader is like a father figure and one has to obey
him, not only without complaints but with respect and dig-
nity. The karma theory, in Indian culture, says that all
actions that are done have the power to ordain for their
doers joy or sorrow in the future depending on whether the
action is good or bad (Mulla and Krishna, 2006). Moreover,
the karma (action) theory says that your good and bad kar-
mas are going to rebound sooner or later. So, the partici-
pants in this study were engaged in their karmas (actions)
required for their jobs. Participants in the present study
showed second largest canonical loading for courtesy after
sportsmanship.
Overall, we found that EI dimensions had a statistically
significant relationship with OCB dimensions and IRB.
Not only was a positive relationship shared among the
predictor and criterion variables, but also it shared a sub-
stantial 32 per cent (square of Rc) of the variance among
the canonical variates. Henceforth, two sets of predictor
variables and criterion variables are positively and signifi-
cantly related.
The dimension of UOE emerged as the most significant
one having the largest canonical loading and cross loading.
It implies that it had the largest relation as an individual
variable with the canonical variate of the same set (emo-
tional intelligence) and with that of the opposite canonical
variate (outcome variables). Among the predictor varia-
bles, the second important dimension emerged to be MOE
as per the results of Tables 2 and 3. The dimension having
least impact in the present study is POE. The results
revealed that UOE and MOE are powerful predictors for
the outcome variables.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
The present study has certain limitations; the sample
consists of technical and non-technical employees working
in the power plant having homogeneous sample. The find-
ings of the study cannot be applied indiscriminately to all
sectors of the industry, but with prudence. Moreover, the
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, Bhawdeep Singh and Parminder Kaur 197
sample consisted of mostly males; further studies can
be conducted in different domains by including females
working on technical jobs. The items included in the
sportsmanship dimension were all reverse coded state-
ments; it might have led the superiors to take a strong
view against such statements. Further studies can be
conducted by including positive statements of this
construct. Though previous research provides evidence
for the hypothesized relationships between emotional
intelligence and outcome variables, it can be further
tested by using different instruments.
Cross-sectional studies across different cultures
can throw further light on the relationships of the
constructs used in the study. Further studies may be
conducted by including wider range of employees
working in different industries. Future research may
investigate whether the magnitude of the relationship
between EI dimensions with respect to outcome
variables differs or not, depending upon the inclusion
of other outcome variables such as commitment,
job involvement, job satisfaction, turnover intentions
and other work attitudes. Direct and moderating effect
of EI on other outcome variables may also be included
in further studies. This study has not included person-
ality variables; future studies can test the incremental
effect of personality variables along with emotional
intelligence to predict the performance variables.
Acknowledgement
Authors wish to thank Rajesh Batra for his assistance in data
collection and tabulation.
References
Abraham, R. (1999). Emotional intelligence in organiza-
tions: A conceptualization. Genetic, Social, and General
Psychology Monographs, 125(2), 209–224.
Bateman, T.S., & Organ, D.W. (1983). Job satisfaction and
the good soldier: The relationship between affect and
citizenship. Academy of Management Journal, 26(4),
587–595.
Bar-On, R. (1997). Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory:
A measure of emotional intelligence, technical manual.
Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Borman, W.C., & Motowidlo, S.J. (1997). Task perfor-
mance and contextual performance: The meaning for
personnel selection research. Human Performance,
10(2), 99–109.
Borman, W.C., White, L.A., & Dorsey, D.W. (1995). Effects
of ratee task performance and interpersonal factors on
supervisor and peer performance ratings. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 80(1), 168–177.
Brief, A.P., & Motowidlo, S.J. (1986). Prosocial organi-
zational behaviors. Academy of Management Review,
11(4), 710–725.
Downloaded from vis.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 3, 2015
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.
Carmeli, A., & Josman, Zvi E., (2006). The relationship among
emotional intelligence, task performance and organizational
citizenship behaviors. Human Performance, 19(4), 403–419.
Cichy, R.F., Kim, S.H., & Cha, J. (2009). The relationship
between emotional intelligence and contextual perform-
ance: Application to automated and vending service industry
executives. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and
Tourism, 8(2), 170–183.
Charbonneau, D., & Nicol, A.A.M. (2002). Emotional intelli-
gence and prosocial behaviors in adolescents. Psychological
Reports, 90(2), 361–370.
Chattopadhyay, P. (1999). Beyond direct and symmetrical effects:
The influence of demographic dissimilarity on organizational
citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal,
42(3), 273–287.
Churchill, G.A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better meas-
ures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research,
16(1), 64–73.
Ciarrochi, J., Chan, A.Y.C., & Caputi, P. (2000). A critical evalu-
ation of the emotional intelligence construct. Personality and
Individual Differences, 28(3), 539–561.
Ciarrochi, J., Chan, A.Y.C., & Bajgar, J. (2001). Measuring emo-
tional intelligence in adolescents. Personality and Individual
Differences, 31(7), 1105–1119.
Ciarrochi, J., Deane, P.F., & Anderson, S. (2002). Emotional intel-
ligence moderates the relationship between stress and mental
health. Personality and Individual Differences, 32(2), 197–209.
Cronbach, L.J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal struc-
ture of test. Psychometrica, 16(3), 297–300.
Connolly, J.J., Kavanagh, E.J., & Viswesvaran, C. (2007). The
convergent validity between self and observer ratings of per-
sonality: A meta-analytic review. International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 15(1), 110–117.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intel-
ligences. New York: Basic Books.
George, J.M. (1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(2), 107–116.
———. (1991). State or trait: Effects of positive mood on proso-
cial behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(2),
299–307.
George, J.M., & Bettenhausen, K. (1990). Understanding proso-
cial behavior, sales performance, and turnover: A group-level
analysis in a service context. Journal of Applied Psychology,
75(6), 698–709.
George, J.M., & Brief, A.P. (1992). Feeling good-doing good: A
conceptual analysis of the mood at work-organizational spon-
taneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112(2), 310–329.
George, J.M., & Jones, G.R. (1997). Organizational spontaneity
in context. Human Performance, 10(2), 153–170.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter
more than IQ. New York, NY: Bantam Books.
Graham, J.W. (1986). Organizational citizenship informed by
political theory. Paper presented at Academy of Management
Meetings, Chicago.
Vision, 16, 3 (2012): 187–199
198 The Relationship among Emotional Intelligence and Outcome Variables
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C. (1998).
Multivariate data analysis, 5th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall, Inc.
Ilangovan, A., Scroggins, W.A., & Rozell, E.J. (2007). Managerial
perspectives on emotional intelligence differences between
India and the United States: The development of research
propositions. International Journal of Management, 24(3),
541–548.
Jain, A.J. (2009). Exploring the relative relevance of organi-
zational citizenship behaviour and emotional intelligence.
Journal of Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 35(1),
87–97.
Kadam, G., Jadhav, M., & Yadav, K. (2011). Emotional intel-
ligence and self esteem among performers in Rambo circus.
Indian Journal of Community Psychology, 7(1), 26–34.
Katz, D. (1964). Motivational basics of organizational behavior.
Behavioral Science, 9(2), 131–146.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. (1978). The social psychology of organiza-
tions. New York: Wiley and Sons.
MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M., & Fetter, R. (1993). The
impact of organizational citizenship behavior on evaluations
of salesperson performance. Journal of Marketing, 57(1),
70–80.
Mayer, J.D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelli-
gence? In P. Salovey & D. J. Sluyter (Eds), Emotional devel-
opment and emotional intelligence (pp. 3–31). New York:
Basic Books.
Modassir, A., & Singh,T. (2008). Relationship of emotional intel-
ligence with transformational leadership and organizational
citizenship behavior. International Journal of Leadership
Studies, 4(1), 3–21.
Moorman, R.H. (1991). Relationship between organizational
justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fair-
ness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of
Applied Psychology, 76(6), 845–855.
Motowidlo, S.J., & Van Scotter, J.R. (1994). Evidence that task
performance should be distinguished from contextual per-
formance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 475–480.
Mulla, Z.R., & Krishna, V.R. (2006). Karma yoga: A concep-
tualization and validation of the Indian philosophy of work.
Journal of Indian Psychology, 24(1 & 2), 26–43.
Niehoff, B.P. (2005). A theoretical model of the influence of
organizational citizenship behaviors on organizational effec-
tiveness. In David L. Turnipseed (Ed.), The Handbook of
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (Chapter 17, pp. 385–
397). New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory. London: Mc Graw-
Hill.
O’Reilly, C., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commit-
ment and psychological attachment: The effects of compli-
ance, identification and internalization on prosocial behavior.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 492–499.
Organ, D.W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior:
The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington
Books.
Organ, D.W., Podsakoff, P.M., & MacKenzie, S.B. (2006).
Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents,
and consequences. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Vision, 16, 3 (2012): 187–199
Downloaded from vis.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 3, 2015
Petrides, K.V., & Furnham, A. (2000). On the dimensional struc-
ture of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual
Differences, 29(2), 313–320.
———. (2001). Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric
investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies.
European Journal of Personality, 15(6), 425–448.
Podsakoff, P.M., & MacKenzie, S.B. (1994). Organizational
citizenship behaviors and sales unit effectiveness. Journal of
Marketing Research, 31(3), 351–363.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H., & Fetter,
R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects
on followers’ trust in leaders, satisfaction, and organizational
citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107–142.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J.D. (1990). Emotional intelligence.
Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9(3), 185–211.
Schutte, N.S., Malouff, J.M., Hall, L.E., Haggerty, D.J., Cooper,
J.T., Golden, C.J., & Dornheim, L. (1998). Development and
validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality
and Individual Differences, 25(2), 167–177.
Schutte, N.S., Malouff, J.M., & Bhullar, N. (2009). Assessing
emotions scale. In C. Stough, D. Saklofske & J. Parker (Eds),
Assessment of emotional intelligence (pp. 119–135). New
York: Springer Publishing.
Schwab, D.P. (1980). Construct validity in organizational behav-
ior. In L.L. Cummings & B. Staw (Eds), Research in organi-
zational behavior, 12 (pp. 3–43). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Singh, S.K. (2007). Emotional intelligence and organizational
leadership: A gender study in Indian context. Int. J. Indian
Culture and Business Management, 1(1/2), 48–63.
Smith, C.A., Organ, D.W., & Near, J.P. (1983). Organizational
citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653–663.
Thorndike, E.L. (1920). Intelligence and its uses. Harpers
Magazine, 140(1), 227–235.
Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L.L., & Parks, J.M. (1995). Extra-
role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity
(A bridge over muddied waters). In L.L. Cummings & B.M.
Staw (Eds), Research in organizational behavior, 17 (pp.
215–285). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Walz, S.M., & Niehoff, B.P. (2000). Organizational citizenship
behaviors: Their relationship to organizational effectiveness.
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 24(3), 301–319.
Watson, D., & Clark, L.A. (1991). Self versus peer ratings of spe-
cific emotional traits: Evidence of convergent and discrimi-
nant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
60(6), 927–940.
Williams, L.J., & Anderson, S.E. (1991). Job satisfaction and
organizational commitment as predictors of organizational
citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management,
17(3), 601–617.
Wong, C.S., & Law, K.S. (2002). The effects of leader and fol-
lower emotional intelligence on performance and attitude:
An exploratory study. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(3),
243–274.
Yen, H.R., & Niehoff, B.P. (2004). Organizational citizenship
behaviors and organizational effectiveness: Examining rela-
tionships in Taiwanese banks. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 34(8), 1617–1637.
Jiwan Jyoti Maini, Bhawdeep Singh and Parminder Kaur 199
Jiwan Jyoti Maini (jjmaini@gmail.com) is an Assistant
Professor (HRM) in the Department of Management Studies at
Malout Institute of Management & Information Technology,
Malout, Punjab, India. She teaches Organizational Behaviour,
Human Resource Management and Corporate Legal Environment.
Her research interests include organizational citizenship
behaviour, emotional intelligence, job performance and job
involvement. She has teaching experience of about 12 years and
has attended various national and international conferences. She
has experience of working on ILO-sponsored project as a team
member. Presently she is working on AICTE-sponsored research
project on Supply Chain Management. She has contributed
papers in over 14 national and international conferences.
Bhawdeep Singh (drbhawdeep@gmail.com) is a Professor at
Punjabi University College of Engineering & Management,
Rampura Phul, Punjab, India. He teaches Marketing Research,
Downloaded from vis.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 3, 2015
Operations Research, Project Management and Management
Science. His research areas include rural marketing. He
has 31 years of teaching and more than 10 years of research
experience. He has to his credit many research papers published
in national and international journals. He is a life member
of Indian Commerce Association, Indian Economic Association
and Indian Political Economy Association. He has penned down
four books and contributed 26 papers in journals and
conferences.
Parminder Kaur (parmindertangi@gmail.com) is Principal at
SSD Girls’ College, Bathinda, Punjab, India. She teaches
Economics and Human Resource Management. She has
accomplished her doctoral thesis on human resource development.
Her research interests include human resource development,
buying behaviour and emotional intelligence. She has published
one book and has to her credit 20 papers in journals.
Vision, 16, 3 (2012): 187–199
Downloaded from vis.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on April 3, 2015