International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 369–378

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Hospitality Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhosman

The effects of emotional intelligence on counterproductive work behaviors and

organizational citizen behaviors among food and beverage employees in a deluxe
hotel
Hyo Sun Jung 1 , Hye Hyun Yoon ∗
Department of Culinary Service Management, College of Hotel & Tourism Management, Kyung Hee University, 1 Hoegi-dong, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul 130-701,
Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: The purpose of this study is to understand the interrelationships among the emotional intelligence of
Emotional intelligence employees in a deluxe hotel, their counterproductive work behaviors, and organizational citizen behav-
Counterproductive work behaviors iors. The sample of this study consists of 319 food and beverage (F&B) employees of a five-star hotel in
Organizational citizen behaviors
Korea. The results showed that as elements of emotional intelligence, others’ emotion appraisal, use of
Hotel
emotion, and self-emotion appraisal significantly affected counterproductive work behaviors, whereas
F&B employee
self-emotion appraisal and use of emotion affected organizational citizen behaviors. In addition, moderat-
ing effects were evident related to job positions in the causal relationships among emotional intelligence,
counterproductive work behaviors, and organizational citizen behaviors. Limitations of this study and
future research directions are also discussed.
© 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction that employees with abundant emotional intelligence were more

Recent research has focused on the importance of emotions
in relation to intellectual abilities, particularly in organizations
that evaluate employees’ abilities in terms of emotions instead
of cognition (Brackett et al., 2006). The importance of emotional
intelligence is emphasized because human relations in organi-
zations are affected by emotional factors more than by rational
factors. Druskat and Wolff (2001) claimed that regarding the influ-
ence the factors affecting individual effectiveness, the emotional
quotient is as important as the intelligence quotient; indeed, the
emotional intelligence of individuals who carry out duties and play
essential roles in ensuring organizational outcomes is quite signif-
icant. Therefore, successful organizations require employees who
can communicate effectively, control their emotions, and demon-
strate their technical abilities. Spencer and Spencer (1993) analyzed
job competencies and found that employees who showed strong
outcomes generally demonstrated excellent emotion-related com-
petencies, thereby indicating that – compared with competencies
based on reason – competencies based on emotions were much
more accurate. Cooper and Sawaf (1997) revealed close relation-
ships between emotional intelligence and creativity, concluding
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 2 961 9403; fax: +82 2 964 2537.
E-mail addresses: chefcook@khu.ac.kr (H.S. Jung), hhyun@khu.ac.kr (H.H. Yoon).
1
Tel.: +82 2 961 2321; fax: +82 2 964 2537.
positive and creative. Goleman (1998) suggested that, since compe-
tent leaders have high levels of emotional intelligence, it is the most
important characteristic in leadership. Dulewicz and Higgs (1998)
also noted that, although the most important factor in employment
examinations is intellectual ability, adaptation to organizations,
promotions, and/or outcomes after entrance were determined by
emotional intelligence.
Emotional intelligence has emerged as an interesting subject
for research, and many studies have examined how emotional
intelligence affects both the organizational effectiveness (Abraham,
1999; Druskat and Wolff, 2001; Nikolaou and Tsaousis, 2002;
Wong and Law, 2002; Weinberger, 2003) and the non-task related
behaviors of employees (Cote and Miners, 2006; Cartwright and
Pappas, 2008). Non-task related behaviors are voluntary behaviors,
which can be divided into positive organizational citizen behaviors
(OCBs) and negative counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs).
In contrast to OCBs, CWBs are forms of organizational misbehav-
ior, dysfunctional behavior, and workplace deviant behavior (Fox
et al., 2001), which are destructive behaviors that are potentially
harmful to both organizations and employees (Lau et al., 2003;
Dalal, 2005; Penny and Spector, 2005). Although the conceptual
difference between OCBs and CWBs is easily identified, empirical
evidence has shown that it is preferable to consider CWBs as forms
of deviance within the organization and OCBs as independent con-
structs, both with their own specific relationships and outcomes
rather than as opposite ends of a single continuum (Sackett et al.,

0278-4319/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.06.008
370 H.S. Jung, H.H. Yoon / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 369–378
Fig. 1. The proposed model of emotional intelligence and counterproductive work
behavior.
2006; Norman et al., 2010). Following this finding and for the pur-
pose of this study, we consider both OCBs and CWBs as independent
outcomes.
However, research thus far has focused on the positive aspects
of emotional intelligence among the non-task related behaviors
of employees. No study has used outcome variables in a nega-
tive dimension. In particular, since OCBs and CWBs as voluntary
behaviors are non-task related behaviors that appear as employ-
ees’ emotional intelligence declines, they will be more significant
as outcome variables. Furthermore, in service-oriented businesses
such as hotels, employees are service providers in direct face-to-
face contact with customers; thus, emotional intelligence that plays
important roles in controlling emotions is more influential. How-
ever, studies of hotel employees in relation to the effectiveness of
emotional intelligence are very rare. Consequently, for employees
to maintain emotionally healthy conditions in service encounters
in hotels and continuously create positive outcomes, their ability
to control their emotions should be prioritized. Indeed, emotional
intelligence is thus required of employees who must perceive and
control their own emotions as well as those of customers in the
course of performing their emotional labor (Mayer and Salovey,
1997). Therefore, it can be supposed that the emotional intelli-
gence of employees can also reduce the adverse effects of CWBs
among employees. In this respect, this study verifies that employ-
ees’ emotional intelligence significantly affects both OCBs, which
are positive behaviors in organizations, and CWBs, which are nega-
tive behaviors, through the results of a case study of the emotional
intelligence of hotel food and beverage employees. It also explores
the details of the sub-factors of emotional intelligence that sig-
nificantly affect OCBs and CWBs. Thus, this study identifies the
associations among emotional intelligence, CWBs, and OCBs that
have not yet been fully explored in the food service literature
(Fig. 1).
2. Literature review and conceptual model
2.1. Emotional intelligence, CWBs, and OCBs
Emotional intelligence (EI) has been defined as “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” (Mayer and Salovey, 1997, p. 10). Goleman
(1995) noted that emotional intelligence is an important factor
in identifying employees who could create excellent work out-
comes and for predicting managers’ work abilities. Dulewicz and
Higgs (1998) considered emotional intelligence to be a process by
which one manages one’s feelings and emotions, defining it as
an ability to perceive one’s own emotions and provide motives
while acting according to ethical standards. Bar-On and Orme
(2002) suggested that emotional intelligence is one’s ability to
respond to emotional, social, and environmental requirements.
Wong and Law (2002) stated that it is an ability to understand
one’s own emotions and those of others and to control/utilize emo-
tions in diverse situations. Emotional intelligence consists of four
aspects: others’ emotional appraisal, use of emotion, self-emotion
appraisal, and regulation of emotion (Wong and Law, 2002). In
follow-up studies, Weinberger (2003) divided emotional intelli-
gence into the ability to understand the emotions of self and
others, the ability to maintain smooth human relations, and the
ability to adapt effectively to environmental changes. Cote and
Miners (2006) divided emotional intelligence into emotion per-
ception, emotion utilization, emotion understanding, and emotion
control.
Counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs) are defined as “vol-
untary behavior of organizational members that violates significant
organizational norms, and in doing so, threatens the well-being
of the organization and/or its members” (Bennett and Robinson,
2000, p. 356). Although early studies on CWBs focused on special
behaviors such as workplace theft (Henry and Mars, 1978) or rude-
ness to colleagues (Newman and Baron, 1998), Hollinger (1986)
specified them as property-related deviations (e.g., misappropria-
tion of business property) and production-related deviations (e.g.,
violation of norms in the performance of tasks). Fox and Spector
(1999) suggested that CWBs include property-related deviations
such as shirking, deliberate lateness and absence, stealing or
misappropriation of company property, as well as aggressive or
violent behavior toward colleagues. Fox et al. (2001) stated that
CWBs are negative behaviors of employees toward organizations
and colleagues. Harper (1990) explained that these counterpro-
ductive work behaviors seriously damage organizations (Murphy,
1993).
Organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) are “the mainte-
nance and enhancement of the social and psychological context
that supports task performance” (Organ, 1997, p. 91). Katz (1964)
noted that OCBs were creative and voluntary behaviors to imple-
ment roles other than officially given duties. However, Puffer
(1987) insisted that OCBs include not only positive behaviors but
also negative ones. He divided OCBs into pro-social behaviors that
benefit organizations and non-adaptive behaviors that harm them.
As employees are able to move away from non-adaptive behaviors,
they become more competent. Organ (1988) divided OCBs into five
components: altruism, conscientiousness, courtesy, civic virtue,
and sportsmanship (MacKenzie et al., 1991, 1993). According to
Karambayya (1989), since OCBs show the degrees of interdepen-
dency among an organization’s employees, they are quite closely
related to the life of the organization. Van Dyne et al. (1994) divided
OCBs into five factors: obedience in organizations, loyalty in organi-
zations, social participation, inspiring participation, and functional
participation. Podsakoff et al. (2000) and Ilies et al. (2007) suggested
that, from a long-term viewpoint, OCBs positively affect organiza-
tional outcomes.
2.2. Relationship between emotional intelligence and CWBs
Most studies on the significance of a human performance model
concerning emotional intelligence criticize the theory that an indi-
vidual’s knowledge, abilities, and specific skills determine the
performance of an organization (e.g., Campbell, 1990; Campbell
et al., 1993). This view sees that the emotions of individual
employees have greater significance than their intellectual abil-
ities in determining their long-term performance (Song et al.,
2010). Martin et al. (1998) believed that employees’ emotional
intelligence plays a role in preventing negative behaviors. In addi-
tion, Mayer et al. (2000) explained that, if employees’ emotional
 H.S. Jung, H.H. Yoon / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 369–378
intelligence improved, deviant behaviors related to organizational
tasks would be remarkably reduced, thereby revealing negative
relationships between emotional intelligence and employees’ devi-
ating behaviors. In addition, Spector (1997) suggested that CWBs
arise from confusion in human relations and a lack of auton-
omy, among other factors, whereas Glomb (2002) claimed that
employees’ personal characteristics (e.g., emotions or aggressive-
ness) were determinants of CWBs. Marcus and Schuler (2004)
and Hepworth and Towler (2004) mentioned self-control as an
antecedent of CWBs, stating that – since emotional intelligence
was the ability to control one’s emotions – those who control
themselves well have an excellent ability to perform emotional
labor, and that this would negatively affect employees’ CWBs
(Bechtoldt et al., 2007). Salgado (2002) and Colbert et al. (2004)
noted that employees’ emotional continuity would adversely affect
CWBs. In addition, Austin et al. (2005) and Mavroveli et al. (2007)
argued that lack of emotional intelligence causes not only nega-
tive behaviors in organizations but also antisocial behaviors from
a macro perspective, and Siu (2009) identified the causal rela-
tion between emotional intelligence and negative behaviors. In
short, when employees are not able to control their emotions,
they are likely to fail in social interactions (Lopes et al., 2005)
and experience negative emotions, resulting in CWBs (Anderson
et al., 1995; Fox et al., 2001). Based on these studies, it can be
assumed that the negative emotions, the degrees of self-control,
and the continuity of emotions experienced by employees may
occur when they lack emotional intelligence. This study therefore
contends that the emotional intelligence of employees could reduce
CWBs. In conclusion, employees who lack emotional intelligence
have a high level of CWBs. These arguments led to the following
hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1. Emotional intelligence is negatively related to
CWBs.
2.3. Relationship between emotional intelligence and OCBs
Brief and Motowidlo (1986) suggested that emotional intelli-
gence would help solve personal problems with colleagues and play
important roles in increasing OCBs, which are positive pro-social
behaviors. Isen et al. (1987) noted that employees with excel-
lent emotional intelligence also had a stronger will to engage in
behaviors outside their roles, voluntarily participate, and dedicate
themselves, thereby demonstrating excellent OCBs. Schutte et al.
(1988) explained that employees with higher emotional intelli-
gence had better human relations with their colleagues. Organ
and Konovsky (1989) said that OCBs were affected by employ-
ees’ emotional characteristics. MacKenzie et al. (1991) also stated
that employees with higher emotional intelligence showed more
OCBs. According to Abraham (1999), employees with high emo-
tional intelligence would better understand colleagues’ feelings
than those with low emotional intelligence; as such, they were
more likely to exhibit altruistic behaviors. Wong and Law (2002)
asserted that emotional intelligence was more closely related to
voluntary behaviors outside primary roles. Cote and Miners (2006)
also emphasized that emotional intelligence was an antecedent
of OCBs, insisting that employees with low rational abilities were
implementing OCBs and producing good outcomes because their
emotional intelligence was excellent. Cartwright and Pappas (2008)
suggested that employees with higher emotional intelligence
were more empathetic, indicating that emotional intelligence is
directly related to OCBs. These arguments led to the following
hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2. Emotional intelligence is positively related to OCBs.
371
3. Research methodology
3.1. Sample and data collection
The data used for this study were collected in 2010 from employ-
ees in hotels in Seoul, Korea. The sample included employees in the
food and beverage division at 12 five-star hotels, such as the Hyatt,
Hilton, Lotte, Marriott, and Ritz-Carlton. We emailed the research
plan via the human resource departments of 20 five-star hotels in
Seoul City; 12 agreed to complete a survey for this study. A pilot
test of 50 employees at the hotels was conducted to ensure the
reliability of the scales; several modifications were made based on
feedback. A convenience sample of participants that comprised all
the food and beverage employees of these 12 target hotels was cho-
sen. The data collection was carried out from October 1 to October
30, 2010. A total of 50 questionnaires, which included 25 for front
of house (FOH) employees and 25 for back of house (BOH) employ-
ees, were distributed to each hotel. Once the human resources
managers gave permission for the survey, the researcher asked the
employees to complete the self-administered questionnaires. The
questionnaires clearly stated that the anonymity of the participants
would be guaranteed. The completed questionnaires were sealed
in envelopes and collected by the researcher one week later. Of the
600 questionnaires distributed, 453 were returned (75.5%). After
eliminating the incomplete questionnaires, a total of 319 ques-
tionnaires were obtained over the four-week period, yielding a
response rate of 53.1%.
3.2. Instrument development
The survey instrument for this study was composed of four parts.
The first three parts pertained to emotional intelligence, CWBs, and
OCBs (Appendix A). To measure employees’ emotional intelligence,
this study adapted the work of Wong and Law (2002) and Law et al.
(2004). The study examines four dimensions of employees’ emo-
tional intelligence (Wong and Law, 2002; Cote and Miners, 2006):
others’ emotion appraisal, use of emotion, self-emotion appraisal,
and regulation of emotion. The others’ emotional appraisal (OEA) is
the ability to perceive and understand others’ emotions. The use of
emotion (UOE) is the ability to use one’s own emotional informa-
tion in one’s performance and productive activities. Self-emotion
appraisal (SEA) is the ability to understand and express one’s own
emotions. Finally, the regulation of emotion (ROE) is the ability to
control one’s own emotions based on appropriate behavior in a
given situation. Emotional intelligence was measured by 16 items
based on a seven-point Likert type scale: “How much do you agree
or disagree with these statements?” (1: strongly disagree to 7:
strongly agree). CWBs were measured using 5 items based on a
seven-point scale (1: strongly disagree to 7: strongly agree) based
on the work of Fox and Spector (1999), Fox et al. (2001), Marcus
and Schuler (2004), and Bechtoldt et al. (2007). OCBs were mea-
sured using 5 items on a seven-point scale (1: strongly disagree to
7: strongly agree) based on the work of Organ (1988), Williams and
Anderson (1991), Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1994), and Moon et al.
(2008). Part four of the questionnaire contained questions eliciting
demographic information from the respondents (e.g., age, gender,
and education level) and job-related information (e.g., tenure and
job positions).
3.3. Data analysis
Descriptive statistics were preformed to profile the respondents’
demographic and job-related responses. Following the two-step
approach recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988), a con-
firmatory factor analysis with maximum likelihood was first
performed to estimate the measurement model, which determined
372 H.S. Jung, H.H. Yoon / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 369–378

Table 1 that the six factors were distinct and unidimensional. Because a
Profile of the sample (n = 319).
few correlation coefficients exceeded .5, this study also verified
Characteristic N Percentage multicollinearity. The result (Table 3) revealed no problem with
Age collinearity, as tolerance was far greater than .1, and VIF was far
21–30 years 123 38.6 less than 10. To address the potential concern of a common method
31–40 years 134 42.0 bias due to the use of a survey, we checked for possible com-
Older than 40 years 62 19.4 mon method variance with Harman’s single-factor test (Harman,
Average 32.87 ± 7.54
1967; Podsakoff et al., 2003). According to this approach, common
Gender
Male 161 50.5 method variance is present if a single factor accounts for the major-
Female 158 49.5 ity of the covariance in the dependent and independent variables.
Education An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of the 26 variables revealed
High school 69 21.6
six factors with Eigen values greater than 1.00 (Appendix B). No
Community college degree (2 years) 135 42.3
University degree (4 years) 115 36.1 single factor explained a majority of the variance, thus providing
Tenure evidence that common method bias was not a threat. In addition,
5 years or fewer 195 61.1 our scale items revealed six factors that explained 73.28% of the
6–9 years 80 25.1 variance in our study’s constructs, with the first factor explain-
10 years or more 44 13.8
ing 42.490% and the last factor explaining 3.919% of the total
Average 6.25 ± 5.18
Job position variance.
Back of the house (BOH) 142 44.5
Front of the house (FOH) 177 55.5
4.3. Structural equation modeling (SEM)

Structural equation modeling was conducted to test the valid-

whether the manifest variables reflected the hypothesized latent ity of the proposed model and the hypotheses. Fig. 2 presents the
variables. Once the measure was validated, a structural equation estimated model, illustrating the direction and magnitude of the
model was used to test the validity of the proposed model and impact of the standardized path coefficients. The chi-square statis-
hypotheses. tic indicated that the model did not fit the data well (2(df =283) =
571.99, p < .001). Given the sensitivity of the chi-square statistics
4. Results to sample size (Bentler and Bonett, 1980), other fit indexes were
also examined. First, the normed chi-square (2 /df) was consid-
4.1. Descriptive statistics of sample ered to reduce the sensitivity of the chi-square statistic. The value
of the normed chi-square was 2.02, which was below the cut-
The characteristics of the sample are presented in Table 1. The off criterion of 3 (Hair et al., 2006), indicating that the model fit
mean age of the participants was 32.87 years; 50.5% were male the data well. Other goodness-of-fit indices proved that the struc-
and 49.5% were female. Most participants (78.3%) had a community tural model reasonably fit the data (GFI = .89; NFI = .92; CFI = .96;
college or university degree. They had been working for an average RMSEA = .05). The model’s fit, as indicated by these indexes, was
of 6.25 years in their current hotel, and their primary job positions deemed satisfactory, thereby providing a good basis for testing
were BOH (44.5%) and FOH (55.5%). the hypothesized paths. The parameter estimates of the struc-
tural model exhibited the direct effects of one construct on the
other. A significant coefficient at a certain level of alpha thus
4.2. Measurement model
reveals a significant relationship among latent constructs (Fig. 2
and Table 4).
Following Anderson and Gerbing’s (1988) two-step approach,
To examine how employees’ emotional intelligence affects
a confirmatory factor analysis was undertaken to assess the fit of
CWBs, Hypothesis 1 was verified and, as a result, partially accepted.
the three-factor model, which was comprised of emotional intel-
Specifically, among the employees’ emotional intelligence ele-
ligence, counterproductive work behaviors, and organizational
ments OEA (ˇ = −.31; t = −4.34; p < .001), SEA (ˇ = −.28; t = −3.47;
citizenship behaviors. As shown in Table 2, the internal consistency
p < .001), and UOE (ˇ = −.24; t = −3.42; p < .001) had a signifi-
in each construct was acceptable, with Cronbach’s alpha estimates
cant effect on CWBs, while ROE (ˇ = −.03; t = −.59; p > .05) did
ranging from .87 to .94 (Nunnally, 1978). Composite reliability esti-
not. Hypothesis 2 (i.e., employees’ emotional intelligence has a
mates ranging from .81 to .91 were considered acceptable (Fornell
and Larcker, 1981). In addition, all variance extracted estimates
(OEA = .71; UOE = .64; SEA = .70; ROE = .69; CWBs = .77; OCBs = .70)
exceeded the recommended .50 threshold (Fornell and Larcker,
1981). Convergent validity was observed since all confirmatory fac-
tor loadings exceeded .70 and were significant at the .001 alpha
level (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). Thus, these results provided
evidence of the convergent validity of the measures. In addition,
confirmatory measurement models demonstrated the soundness of
measurement properties (2(df =282) = 523.61; p < .001; 2 /df = 1.85;
goodness of fit index (GFI) = .90; normed fit index (NFI) = .93;
comparative fit index (CFI) = .97; root mean square error of approx-
imation (RMSEA) = .06). The correlations, means, and standard
deviations of the study constructs are presented in Table 3. Results
of the correlation analysis provide support for the discriminant
validity, which was evident since the variance-extracted estimates,
ranging from .64 to .77, exceeded all squared correlations for each
pair of constructs, ranging from .01 to .44. These results suggested Fig. 2. Structural equation model with parameter estimates.
 H.S. Jung, H.H. Yoon / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 369–378 373

Table 2
Reliabilities and confirmatory factor analysis properties.

Construct (Cronbach’s alpha) Standardized loadings t-Value CCR AVE

Others’ emotion appraisal (.91) .86 .71

OEA1 .78 Fixed
OEA2 .88 17.275***
OEA3 .87 17.186***
OEA4 .86 16.933***
Use of emotion (.87) .81 .64
UOE1 .84 Fixed
UOE2 .73 14.153***
UOE3 .80 16.135***
UOE4 .83 16.976***
Self-emotion appraisal (.90) .85 .70
SEA1 .79 Fixed
SEA2 .85 16.881***
SEA3 .87 17.244***
SEA4 .83 16.158***
Regulation of emotion (.89) .81 .69
ROE1 .80 Fixed
ROE2 .74 20.935***
ROE3 .89 18.247***
ROE4 .87 17.395***
CWBs (.94) .91 .77
CWB1 .82 Fixed
CWB2 .86 21.367***
CWB3 .89 18.597***
CWB4 .92 19.425***
CWB5 .91 19.124***
OCBs (.92) .88 .70
OCB1 .79 Fixed
OCB2 .88 17.879***
OCB3 .85 17.147***
OCB4 .82 16.208***
OCB5 .82 16.202***

Notes: CCR, composite construct reliability; AVE, average variance extracted.

2(df =282) = 523.61, p < .001; 2 /df = 1.85; goodness of fit index (GFI) = .90; normed fit index (NFI) = .93; Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) = .96; comparative fit index (CFI) = .97;
incremental fit index (IFI) = .97; root square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .05; root mean square residual (RMR) = .06.
***
p < .001.

significant effect on OCBs) was also partially accepted. UOE (ˇ = .34;
t = 4.59; p < .001) and SEA (ˇ = .33; t = 3.82; p < .001) had a signifi-
cant effect on OCBs, whereas OEA (ˇ = .13; t = 1.80; p > .05) and ROE
(ˇ = .01; t = .15; p > .05) did not.
4.4. The moderating effects
A multi-group approach was used to test the moderating effects
of the employees’ job positions (FOH vs. BOH) on emotional intelli-
gence, CWBs, and OCBs; 2 differences with two degrees of freedom
were used to compare the two models (unconstrained and con-
strained) for each of the eight path coefficients, consecutively.
The results of the moderating effects of tenure are shown in
Table 5 and Fig. 3. The 2 value of the unconstrained model (freely
estimated) was subtracted from the 2 value of the constrained
model (constrained to be equal). The unconstrained model showed
a good fit to the data (2 = 1057.35; df = 566; p < .001; GFI = .81;
NFI = .86; CFI = .93; RMSEA = .05). The link between employees’
emotional intelligence and CWBs, the difference in 2 between
the constrained model and the unconstrained model, was partially
significant (UOE → CWBs; 2(df =1) = 4.38, p < .05). The results
showed that the effects of the employees’ emotional intelligence
(only UOE) on CWBs were significantly stronger in the BOH posi-
tion (ˇ = −.38; t = −3.34; p < .001) than in the FOH position (ˇ = −.12;

Table 3
Means, standard deviations, and correlations.

Construct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean ± SDa

1. Gender 1 –
2. Age −.06 1 –
3. Education level −.22** −.05 1 –
4. Tenure −.19** .45** .47** 1 –

5. Others’ emotion appraisal −.09 −.06 .15** .06 1 4.75 ± 1.12

6. Use of emotion −.18** −.08 .23** .09 .54** 1 4.87 ± 1.10
7. Self-emotion appraisal −.12* −.09 .12* .03 .65** .61** 1 4.85 ± 1.11
8. Regulation of emotion −.13* −.01 .06 .04 .37** .47** .51** 1 4.55 ± 1.21
9. CWBs −.12* −.07 −.17** −.12* −.60*** −.55** −.61** −.42** 1 2.86 ± 1.14
10. OCBs −.08 .03 .22** .18** .52** .57** .59** .41** −.67** 1 4.88 ± 1.07
a
SD, standard deviation; all variables were measured on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
374 H.S. Jung, H.H. Yoon / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 369–378

Table 4
Structural parameter estimates.

Hypothesized path (stated as alternative hypothesis) Standardized coefficients t-Value Results

H1: emotional intelligence → CWBs

H1a OEA → CWBs −.31 −4.34*** Supported
H1b UOE → CWBs −.24 −3.42*** Supported
H1c SEA → CWBs −.28 −3.47*** Supported
H1d ROE → CWBs −.03 −.59 Rejected
H2: emotional intelligence → OCBs
H2a OEA → OCBs .13 1.80 Rejected
H2b UOE → OCBs .34 4.59*** Supported
H2c SEA → OCBs .33 3.82*** Supported
H2d ROE → OCBs .01 .15 Rejected
Goodness-of-fit statistics 2(df =283) = 571.99 (p < .001)
2 /df = 2.02
GFI = .89
NFI = .92
CFI = .96
RMSEA = .05

Notes: GFI, goodness of fit index; NFI, normed fit index; CFI, comparative fit index; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; OEA, others’ emotion appraisal; UOE,
use of emotion; SEA, self-emotion appraisal; ROE, regulation of emotion; CWBs, counterproductive work behaviors; OCBs, organizational citizenship behaviors.
***
p < .001.

Table 5
Moderating effects of job position.

BOH (N = 142) FOH (N = 177) Unconstrained model Constrained model 2(df =1)
chi-square (df = 566) chi-square (df = 567)

Standardized t-Value Standardized t-Value

coefficients coefficients

OEA → CWBs −.24 −2.50* −.41 −3.87*** 1057.35 1058.23 .88

UOE → CWBs −.38 −3.34*** −.12 −1.40 1057.35 1061.73 4.38*
SEA → CWBs −.25 −2.13* −.26 −2.08* 1057.35 1057.41 .06
ROE → CWBs −.04 .41 −.12 −1.66 1057.35 1059.02 1.67

OEA → OCBs .06 .61 .17 1.58 1057.35 1057.73 .38

UOE → OCBs .14 1.17 .45 4.36*** 1057.35 1061.36 4.01*
SEA → OCBs .46 3.36*** .20 1.56 1057.35 1058.54 1.19
ROE → OCBs .13 1.30 .02 .22 1057.35 1058.20 .85

Notes: 2 /df = 1.868; GFI = .81; NFI = .86; CFI = .93; RMSEA = .05; OEA, others’ emotion appraisal; UOE, use of emotion; SEA, self-emotion appraisal; ROE, regulation of emotion;
CWBs, counterproductive work behaviors; OCBs, organizational citizenship behaviors
*
p < .05.
***
p < .001.

Fig. 3. Moderating effects of job position. Notes: OEA, others’ emotion appraisal; UOE, use of emotion; SEA, self-emotion appraisal; ROE, regulation of emotion; CWBs,
counterproductive work behaviors; OCBs, organizational citizenship behaviors.
 H.S. Jung, H.H. Yoon / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 369–378
t = −1.40; p > .05). In addition, in terms of the relationship between
emotional intelligence and OCBs, a partially significant differ-
ence occurred between the constrained and unconstrained models
(UOE → OCBs; 2(df =1) = 4.01, p < .05). The results showed that the
effects of employees’ UOE among emotional intelligence on OCBs
were significantly stronger in the FOH position (ˇ = .45; t = 4.36;
p < .001) than in the BOH position (ˇ = .14; t = 1.17; p > .05).
5. Discussion
5.1. Conclusion
This study examined the effect of employees’ emotional intel-
ligence on CWBs and OCBs. Emotional intelligence is categorized
into four areas: others’ emotions appraisal, use of emotion, self-
emotion appraisal, and regulation of emotion. This study found that
three of these areas – others’ emotion appraisal, use of emotion, and
self-emotion appraisal – have a significant negative effect on CWBs
(Spector, 1997; Martin et al., 1998; Mayer et al., 2000; Bechtoldt
et al., 2007).
It is supposed that these results were produced because the
emotional intelligence of the hotel employees reduces involun-
tary and negative deviating behaviors. More specifically, emotional
intelligence had negative effects on the CWBs in terms of others’
emotion appraisal, use of emotion, and self-emotion appraisal. In
particular, others’ emotion appraisal had the greatest influence
on CWBs, indicating that, if the ability to perceive and under-
stand others’ emotions is insufficient, then the effect on CWBs will
be more adverse. Consequently, it is considered that in order to
reduce employees’ CWBs, educational training and rewards should
be introduced to enable the employees’ understanding of the emo-
tions of colleagues and customers.
Another finding is that self-emotion appraisal and use of emo-
tion among elements of employees’ emotional intelligence have a
significant positive effect on OCBs. These findings support previous
work (Brief and Motowidlo, 1986; Isen et al., 1987; MacKenzie et al.,
1991; Wong and Law, 2002; Cote and Miners, 2006). The results
of the current study demonstrated that emotional intelligence
regarding the ability to understand one’s emotions effectively while
using and controlling emotions would induce voluntary and pos-
itive behaviors. In particular, emotional intelligence in the use
of emotion and self-emotion appraisal was more important in
increasing OCBs; moreover, use of emotion had a greater influence
on OCBs than self-emotion appraisal did. This result confirms that, if
employees understand, control, and use their emotions effectively,
they will create positive working environments and significantly
improve organizational outcomes such as increased OCBs.
With regard to the effects of the emotional intelligence of hotel
employees on CWBs and OCBs, the results indicated that the paths
to show significant causal relationships varied according to job
positions (BOH vs. FOH). In particular, with regard to the effects
of use of emotion on CWBs, BOH showed higher negative effects
than FOH did. Employees in BOH spend more time with their col-
leagues than with their customers. Thus, emotional intelligence in
terms of utilizing one’s own emotional information in one’s per-
formance and productive activities has more pronounced effects
on CWBs that are important in human relations. In addition, in
the case of BOH, dependency on others is much greater than in
other departments and most tasks are manually done; thus, jobs
are performed under strict ranking and division of work. Con-
sequently, the results show that the essential characteristics of
BOH such as professionalism, collegiality, and excessive workloads
affect non-task related behaviors related to colleagues more than
they affect other departments. In contrast, with regard to the effects
of use of emotion on OCBs, FOH showed significantly higher adverse
375
effects compared with BOH. This result reflects the characteristics
of work in FOH where employees conduct emotional exchanges
by directly facing customers at service contact points. Employees
in FOH should connect their emotional information with out-
comes and must respond more intelligently in their use of emotion.
Therefore, they show more positive effects than do employees in
BOH.
5.2. Managerial implications
This study examined the effects of emotional intelligence ele-
ments on deluxe hotel food and beverage employees’ CWBs and
OCBs. The results indicated that emotional intelligence is a criti-
cal factor in corporate internal marketing. Most previous studies
have examined employees’ emotional intelligence mainly in gen-
eral businesses or examined only positive aspects of non-task
related behaviors. This study is important because it explores the
emotional intelligence of employees and verifies the causal rela-
tionship between hotel employees’ CWBs and OCBs. Therefore, this
study, like the early research in this field, is expected to be used to
understand emotional intelligence in hotel employees. This study
was conceptualized and applied at the organizational level; previ-
ous studies of emotional intelligence were at only the individual
level in order to verify the causal relationships between emotional
intelligence and CWBs/OCBs. Because hotel industries are labor
intensive and hospitality oriented in order to provide personal ser-
vices to customers, they are particularly required to manage their
employees’ emotions. Indeed, the current study showed that emo-
tional intelligence was a very important factor in the management
of human resources in organizations. However, hotel employees
are under great stress and their turnover rate is considerably high
because of their poor work environments, long working hours,
lack of authority, mandatory work on holidays, and low wages
(Karatepe et al., 2009). Therefore, this study emphasized that the
logical abilities and the emotional abilities of hotel employees are
equally important. The emotional intelligence of hotel employees
should be managed with to ensure improved business outcomes.
Therefore, if hotels can enhance their employees’ emotional intel-
ligence, both employees’ behaviors and organizational outcomes
will improve. To this end, hotel managers should identify mea-
sures to improve the emotional intelligence of their employees.
Furthermore, given that – unlike conventional intelligence – emo-
tional intelligence can be developed through environments and
training (Goleman, 1998), training to hone employees’ emotional
intelligence will improve service quality and improvement over the
long term. Considering that employees with high levels of emo-
tional intelligence have better relationships with colleagues, and
this condition can be connected to organizational atmospheres
that can contribute to organizational objectives, it is necessary to
develop and apply the emotional intelligence of service employ-
ees in order to increase OCBs and decrease their CWBs (Palmer
et al., 2002). Consequently, as Mayer and Salovey (1997) indi-
cated, emotional intelligence variables that significantly affect both
CWBs and OCBs (i.e., self-emotion appraisal and use of emotion)
should take precedence over other factors. Therefore, based on
the results indicating that employees with excellent emotional
intelligence are less likely to engage in counterproductive behav-
iors toward organizations and are more likely to form positive
ties with colleagues, organizations should recruit employees with
high emotional intelligence and establish group programs that
can encourage the wise use of emotions and the understand-
ing of self-emotion in order to induce employees to contribute
to the achievement of organizational objectives. In addition, to
provide better services to customers and form stable collegial
work environments, employees with excellent emotional intelli-
gence should be assigned to duties in which they can use this
376 H.S. Jung, H.H. Yoon / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 369–378

ability. In addition, educational programs should be developed to Continued

improve emotional intelligence. At the organizational level, work- Variablesa Mean ± SD
ing environments should encourage the emotional intelligence of
employees. Counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs)
CWB1 : purposely wasted company materials/supplies 2.95 ± 1.28
5.3. Limitations and future research CWB2 : came to work late without permission 2.89 ± 1.27
CWB3 : put in to be paid for more hours than you worked 2.81 ± 1.26
CWB4 : started an argument with a coworker 2.78 ± 1.23
Several limitations of the study need to be addressed. First, the CWB5 : refused to help a coworker 2.86 ± 1.25
present study tested the hypothesized relationships using a sam- Organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs)
ple of food and beverage employees in the Korean hotel industry. OCB1 : tries to implement solutions to pressing 4.98 ± 1.16
organizational problems
However, the use of convenience sampling can introduce unknown
OCB2 : conscientiously follows company rules and 4.94 ± 1.22
systematic and variable errors. The hotels selected as study subjects procedures
therefore cannot be judged to be representative of all hospitality OCB3 : never neglects to follow bosses’ instructions 4.84 ± 1.23
industries. The questionnaires used to measure emotional intelli- OCB4 : is always ready to help those around him/her 4.87 ± 1.26
gence used content that had previously been applied to a general OCB5 : willingly gives of his/her time to help others who have 4.82 ± 1.29
work-related problems
company, not to a hotel industry. Thus, it may be unreasonable
to generalize these results to the entire hospitality industry. In Notes: SD, standard deviation; OEA, others’ emotion appraisal; UOE, use of emotion;
SEA, self-emotion appraisal; ROE, regulation of emotion.
addition, since CWBs represent negative role outcomes, efforts a
All variables were measured on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree)
were made to maximize the anonymity of respondents; however, to 7 (strongly agree).
the respondents’ tendencies toward defensive responses to the
measurement questions could not be excluded and therefore may
be a limiting factor. This study also did not consider sufficient Appendix B.
variables of individual differences that may influence emotional
intelligence at the individual level. Furthermore, employees’ tol-
erance to emotional intelligence or degree of adaptation to their Exploratory factor analysis.
current job should be taken into account in order to make the Variables Factor loading
proposed model more suitable. In addition, examining the moder-
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6
ating effect of the causal relationship between employees’ general
traits would lead to more specific recommendations. Moreover, OEA1 .164 .226 .152 .744 .222 .272
further significant results from a managerial perspective would OEA2 .183 .252 .135 .788 .222 .159
OEA3 .130 .266 .177 .797 .119 .248
be provided if subsequent studies developed an EI-EB model for
OEA4 .160 .197 .011 .786 .142 .212
non-hotel industries and determined the differences between the
UOE1 .260 .135 .189 .217 .772 .118
models for hotel and non-hotel industries through a comparative
UOE2 .171 .143 .174 .252 .787 .108
analysis. UOE3 .081 .245 .200 .067 .713 .262
UOE4 .255 .207 .187 .175 .698 .295
Acknowledgements SEA1 .207 .142 .194 .378 .177 .684
SEA2 .191 .190 .191 .303 .240 .737
This work was supported by a grant from the Kyung Hee Uni- SEA3 .264 .201 .206 .243 .194 .746
SEA4 .212 .239 .215 .178 .218 .718
versity in 2011 (KHU-20110098).
ROE1 .220 .111 .820 .086 .193 .137
ROE2 .089 .174 .848 .078 .149 .176
Appendix A. ROE3 .048 .090 .862 .127 .139 .118
ROE4 .101 .126 .858 .103 .140 .154

CWB1 −.210 −.755 −.117 −.095 −.115 −.085

Descriptive statistics of variables.
CWB2 −.235 −.741 −.078 −.166 −.123 −.209
Variablesa Mean ± SD CWB3 −.161 −.733 −.115 −.238 −.094 −.127
CWB4 −.141 −.679 −.138 −.240 −.153 −.067
Emotional intelligence CWB5 −.129 −.688 −.111 −.157 −.197 −.190
OEA1 : I always know my friends’ emotions from their 4.67 ± 1.29
behaviors OCB1 .748 .287 .111 .180 .226 .225
OEA2 : I am good observer of others’ emotions 4.66 ± 1.27 OCB2 .705 .199 .111 .153 .174 .129
OEA3 : I am sensitive to the feelings and emotions of others 4.81 ± 1.20 OCB3 .770 .078 .084 .192 .119 .041
OEA4 : I have good understanding of the emotions of people 4.88 ± 1.29 OCB4 .737 .220 .102 .089 .096 .169
around me OCB5 .728 .133 .083 .029 .103 .176
UOE1 : I always set goals for myself and then try my best to 4.95 ± 1.26 Eigen values 11.026 2.321 1.809 1.528 1.284 1.019
achieve them Variance 42.409 8.926 6.958 5.876 4.940 3.919
UOE2 : I always tell myself I am a competent person 4.80 ± 1.32
UOE3 : I am a self-motivated person 4.74 ± 1.25 Notes: total cumulative = 73.28%; OEA, others’ emotion appraisal; UOE, use of
UOE4 : I always encourage myself to try my best 5.01 ± 1.32 emotion; SEA, self-emotion appraisal; ROE, regulation of emotion; CWB, counter-
SEA1 : I have a good sense of why I have certain feelings most 4.69 ± 1.26 productive work behavior; OCB, organizational citizenship behavior.
of the time
SEA2 : I have good understanding of my own emotions 4.87 ± 1.27
SEA3 : I really understand what I feel 4.92 ± 1.28
SEA4 : I always know whether I am happy or not 4.96 ± 1.24
ROE1 : I am able to control my temper and handle difficulties 4.66 ± 1.37 References
rationally
ROE2 : I am quite capable of controlling my own emotions 4.54 ± 1.32 Abraham, R., 1999. Emotional intelligence in organizations: a conceptualization.
ROE3 : I can always calm down quickly when I am very angry 4.52 ± 1.40 Social & General Psychology Monographs 125 (2), 209–219.
ROE4 : I have good control of my own emotions 4.53 ± 1.38 Anderson, C.A., Deuser, W.E., DeNeve, K.M., 1995. Hot temperatures, hostile affect,
hostile cognition, and arousal: tests of a general model of affective aggression.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21 (5), 434–448.
 H.S. Jung, H.H. Yoon / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 369–378
Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W., 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: a
review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin 103 (3),
411–423.
Austin, E.J., Saklofske, D.H., Egan, V., 2005. Personality, well-being, and health cor-
relates of trait emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences 38
(3), 547–558.
Bar-On, R., Orme, G., 2002. The contribution of emotional intelligence to individual
and organisational effectiveness. Competency and Emotional Intelligence 9 (4),
23–28.
Bechtoldt, M.N., Welk, C., Hartig, J., Zapf, D., 2007. Main and moderating effects
of self-control, organizational justice, and emotional labour on counterproduc-
tive at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 16 (4),
479–500.
Bennett, R.J., Robinson, S.L., 2000. Development of a measure of workplace deviance.
Journal of Applied Psychology 85 (3), 349–360.
Bentler, P.M., Bonett, D.G., 1980. Significance test and goodness of fit in the analysis
of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin 88 (3), 588–606.
Brackett, M.A., Rivers, S.E., Shiffman, S., Lerner, N., Salovey, P., 2006. Relating
emotional abilities to social functioning: a comparison of self-report and per-
formance measures of emotional intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 91 (4), 780–795.
Brief, A.P., Motowidlo, S.J., 1986. Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of
Management Review 11 (4), 710–725.
Campbell, J.P., 1990. Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial
and organizational psychology. In: Hough, L.M. (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial
and Organizational Psychology. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA,
pp. 687–732.
Campbell, J.P., McCloy, R.A., Opper, S.H., Sager, C.E., 1993. A theory of performance.
In: Schmitt, N., Borman, W.C., Associates (Eds.), Personnel Selection in Organi-
zations. Jossey-Bass, CA, pp. 35–70.
Cartwright, S., Pappas, C., 2008. Emotional intelligence its measurement and impli-
cations for the workplace. International Journal of Management Review 10 (2),
149–171.
Colbert, A.E., Mount, M.K., Harter, J.K., Witt, L.A., Barrick, M.R., 2004. Interac-
tive effects of personality and perception of the work situation on workplace
deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology 89 (4), 599–609.
Cooper, R.K., Sawaf, A., 1997. Executive EQ: Emotional Intelligence in Leadership and
Organizations. Gosset/Putnam, New York, NY.
Cote, S., Miners, C.T.H., 2006. Emotional intelligence, cognitive intelligence and job
performance. Administrative Science Quarterly 51 (1), 1–28.
Dalal, R.S., 2005. A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational cit-
izenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied
Psychology 90 (6), 1241–1255.
Druskat, V.U., Wolff, S.B., 2001. Building the emotional intelligence of groups. Har-
vard Business Review 79 (3), 80–90.
Dulewicz, V., Higgs, M., 1998. Emotional intelligence: can it be measures reliably
and validly using competency data? Competency 6 (1), 1–15.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unob-
servable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18
(1), 39–50.
Fox, S., Spector, P.E., 1999. A model of work frustration-aggression. Journal of Orga-
nizational Behavior 20 (6), 915–931.
Fox, S., Spector, P.E., Miles, D., 2001. Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in
response to job stressor and organizational justice: some mediator and mod-
erator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior 59 (3),
291–309.
Glomb, T., 2002. Workplace anger and aggression: informing conceptual models
with data from specific encounters. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology
7 (1), 20–36.
Goleman, D., 1995. Emotional Intelligence. Bantam Books, New York, NY.
Goleman, D., 1998. Working with Emotional Intelligence. Bantam Books, New York,
NY.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., 2006. Multivariate Data
Analysis with Readings, 6th edition. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Harper, D., 1990. Spotlight abuse–save profits. Industrial Distribution 79 (10), 47–51.
Harman, H.H., 1967. Modern Factor Analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago,
IL.
Henry, S., Mars, J., 1978. Crime at work: the social construction of amateur proper
theft. Sociology 12 (2), 245–263.
Hepworth, W., Towler, A., 2004. The effects of individual differences and charismatic
leadership on workplace aggression. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology
9 (2), 176–185.
Hollinger, R.C., 1986. Acts against the workplace: social bonding and employee
deviance. Deviant Behavior 7 (1), 53–75.
Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J.D., Morgeson, F.P., 2007. Leader-member exchange and cit-
izenship behaviors: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 92 (1),
269–277.
Isen, A.M., Daubman, K.A., Nowicki, S., 1987. Positive affect facilitates creative prob-
lem solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52 (6), 1122–1131.
Karambayya, R., 1989. Contexts for Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Do High
Performing and Satisfying Units Have Better ‘Citizens’, New York University
Working Paper, North York, Ontario, Canada.
Karatepe, O.M., Yorganci, I., Haktanir, M., 2009. Outcomes of customer verbal aggres-
sion among hotel employees. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management 21 (6), 713–733.
Katz, J.J., 1964. Mentalism in linguistics. Language 40, 124–137.
377
Lau, V.C.S., Au, W.T., Ho, J.M., 2003. A qualitative and quantitative review of
antecedents of counterproductive behavior in organizations. Journal of Business
and Psychology 18 (1), 73–99.
Law, K.S., Wong, C.S., Song, L.J., 2004. The construct and criterion validity of emo-
tional intelligence and its potential utility for management studies. Journal of
Applied Psychology 89 (3), 483–496.
Lopes, P.N., Salovey, P., Côté, S., Beers, M., 2005. Emotion regulation ability and the
quality of social interaction. Emotion 5 (1), 113–118.
MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M., Fetter, R., 1991. Organizational citizenship behavior
and objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of sales-
persons’ performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
50 (1), 123–150.
MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M., Fetter, R., 1993. The impact of organizational citi-
zenship behavior on evaluations of sales performance. Journal of Marketing 57
(1), 70–80.
Marcus, B., Schuler, H., 2004. Antecedents of counterproductive behavior at work: a
general perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology 89 (4), 647–660.
Martin, J.M., Knopoff, K., Beckham, C., 1998. An alternative to bureaucratic
impersonality and emotional labor: bounded emotionality at the body shop.
Administrative Science Quarterly 43 (2), 429–470.
Mavroveli, S., Petrides, K.V., Rieffe, C., Bakker, F., 2007. Trait emotional intelligence,
psychological well-being and peer-rated social competence in adolescence.
British Journal of Developmental Psychology 25, 263–275.
Mayer, J.D., Caruso, D.R., Salovey, P., 2000. Emotional intelligence meets traditional
standards for an intelligence. Intelligence 27 (4), 267–298.
Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P., 1997. What is emotional intelligence? In: Salovey, P.,
Sluyter, D. (Eds.), Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence: Educa-
tional Implications. Basic Books, New York, NY, pp. 3–34.
Moon, H., Kamdar, D., Mayer, D.M., Takeuchi, R., 2008. Me or we? The role of per-
sonality and justice as other-centered antecedents to innovative citizenship
behavior within organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology 93 (1), 84–94.
Murphy, K.R., 1993. Honesty in the Workplace. Brooks/Cole, Belmont, Pacific Grove,
California, CA.
Newman, J.H., Baron, R.A., 1998. Workplace violence and workplace aggression: evi-
dence concerning specific forms, potential causes, and preferred targets. Journal
of Management 24 (3), 391–419.
Nikolaou, I., Tsaousis, I., 2002. Emotional intelligence in the workplace: exploring
its effects on occupational stress and organizational commitment. International
Journal of Organizational Analysis 10 (4), 327–342.
Norman, S.M., Avey, J.B., Nimnicht, J.L., Pigeon, N.G., 2010. The interactive effects
of psychological capital and organizational identity on employee organizational
citizenship and deviance behaviors. Journal of Leadership and Organizational
Studies 17 (4), 380–391.
Nunnally, J., 1978. Psychometric Theory, 2nd edition. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Organ, D.W., 1988. A restatement of the satisfaction performance hypothesis. Journal
of Management 14 (4), 547–557.
Organ, D.W., 1997. Organizational citizenship behavior: it’s construct clean-up time.
Human Performance 10 (2), 85–97.
Organ, D.W., Konovsky, M., 1989. Cognitive versus affective determinants of orga-
nizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology 74 (1), 157–
164.
Palmer, B., Donaldson, C., Stough, C., 2002. Emotional intelligence and life satisfac-
tion. Personality and Individual Differences 33 (7), 1091–1100.
Penny, L.M., Spector, P.E., 2005. Job stress incivility and counterproductive work
behavior (CWB): the moderating role of negative affectivity. Journal of Organi-
zatinal Behavior 26 (5), 777–796.
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., Lee, J.Y., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common method
biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recom-
mended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (5), 879–903.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B., Bachrach, D.G., 2000. Organizational
citizenship behaviors: a critical review of the theoretical and empirical lit-
erature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management 26 (3),
513–563.
Puffer, S.M., 1987. Prosocial behavior, noncompliant behavior, and work perfor-
mance among commission salespeople. Journal of Applied Psychology 72 (4),
615–621.
Sackett, P.R., Berry, C.M., Wiemann, S.A., Laczo, R.M., 2006. Citizenship and coun-
terproductive behavior: clarifying relations between the two domains. Human
Performance 19 (4), 441–464.
Salgado, J.F., 2002. The Big Five personality dimensions and counterproductive
behaviors. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 10 (1/2), 117–
125.
Schutte, N.S., Malouff, J.M., Hall, L.E., Haggerty, D.J., Cooper, L.T., Golden, C.J.,
Domheim, L., 1988. Development and validation of a measure of emotional
intelligence. Personality and Individual Difference 25, 167–177.
Siu, A.F.Y., 2009. Trait emotional intelligence and its relationships with problem
behavior in Hong Kong adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences 47
(6), 553–557.
Song, L.J., Huang, G., Peng, K.J., Law, K.S., Wong, C.S., Chen, Z., 2010. The differen-
tial effects of general mental ability and emotional intelligence on academic
performance and social interactions. Intelligence 38 (1), 137–143.
Spector, P.E., 1997. The role of frustration in antisocial behavior at work. In:
Giacalone, R.A., Greenberg, J. (Eds.), Antisocial Behavior in Organizations. Thou-
sand Oaks, Sage, CA, pp. 1–17.
378 H.S. Jung, H.H. Yoon / International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2012) 369–378

Spencer, J.L.M., Spencer, S.M., 1993. Competence at Work. John Wiley and Sons, New
York, NY.
Van Dyne, L., Graham, J.W., Dienesch, R.M., 1994. Organizational citizenship
behavior: construct redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy of
Management Journal 37 (4), 765–802.
Weinberger, L.A., 2003. An examination of the relationship between emotional
intelligence, leadership style and perceived leadership effectiveness. Doctoral
Dissertation. The Graduate School of the University of Minnesota.
Williams, L.J., Anderson, S.E., 1991. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment
as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behavior. Journal of Man-
agement 17 (3), 601–617.
Wong, C., Law, K.S., 2002. The effect of leader and follower emotional intelligence
on performance and attitude: an exploratory study. Leadership Quarterly 13 (3),
243–274.