Relationship Between Job Engagement and Organizational Performance; Moderator Effect of Emotional Intelligence

Abstract

Employee satisfaction and emotional interaction are very important subjects for organizational performance in today's working environment. In this research, the moderator effect of emotional intelligence on the relationship between job engagement of employees and qualitative performances of organizations is examined. The research data obtained from field study with the participation of 314 private sector employees were analyzed using SPSS and AMOS package programs. As a result of testing research hypotheses with the structural equality model (SEM), it has been stated that the emotional engagement and cognitive engagement positively affects the qualitative performance of organizations. Moreover, it is observed that the emotional intelligence of the employees has a moderator effect on the relationship between job engagement and organizational performance. The results show that emotional engagement and cognitive engagement have positive effects on organizational performance. Also, considering the gap in the literature, the moderator effect is determined in the relationship between job engagement of emotional intelligence and qualitative performance.

Keywords: Job EngagementEmotional IntelligenceOrganizational Performance

Introduction

Performance, where the intensity of competition is constantly increasing, has become one of the important parameters determining company performance in today's world. Organizational performance is also affected by the relationship between the organization and their employees. The concept of job engagement that is discussed in this context is also an explanation for the relationship between the organization and the employee. In this context, the concept of job engagement is also an explanation for the relationship between the organization and its employees.

In particular, although from 1990s, Khan (1990, 1992); Weick and Roberts (1993); Harter, Schmidt and Hayes (2002); Schaufeli and Bakker, (2004) have made significant contribution on job engagement; Rich, Lepine and Crawford (2010) have made one of the first studies that are addressing this issue empirically. Rich et. al. (2010) aimed to reveal the relationship between job engagement and organizational factors together with business performance by developing the theoretical framework done by Kahn (1990). For this reason we also used this scale for our research, which was developed in the study of Rich et. al. (2010) and aimed at explaining the relationship between job engagement and performance.

Even though the effects of job engagement on employee performance have been clearly demonstrated in many studies in the literature (Halbesleben & Wheeler 2008; Bakker & Leiter 2010; Gruman & Saks 2011; Christian, Garza, & Slaughter 2011; Bakker, Tims, & Derks 2012; Gabler, Rapp, & Richey 2014), there are relatively few studies indicating this relationship together with the dimensions of job engagement. In this study however, we aim to show the relationship between organizational performance and job engagement together with the three dimensions of job engagement which are physical engagement, cognitive engagement, and emotional engagement (Khan, 1990, 1992; Rich et al., 2010).

Emotional intelligence, which is another concept that constitutes the subject of our work, has the role of increasing the power and intensity of this relationship and had been researched many times in management and organizational behavior studies (Sudak & Zehir, 2013). The concept of emotional intelligence, which is defined as the individual's own feelings and emotions, or the ability to reflect and distinguish the feelings and emotions of others, and to use this knowledge in the dimension of thought and action (Salovey & Mayer, 1990); has been analyzed together with the issues such as performance, productivity, leadership, organizational citizenship, job satisfaction (Rosete & Ciarrochi, 2005; Cote & Miners, 2006; Kafetsios & Zampetakis, 2008; Dong, Seo, & Bartol, 2014). However, the influence of employees' emotional intelligence on job engagement and performance outcomes has not been examined in the literature on management and organizational behavior. For this reason, the moderator effect of emotional intelligence on the relationship between job engagement and organizational performance is examined in this paper.

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

Individuals participate in organizations with their own self-perceptions, and within the organization which is a social entity, they act and think with the influence of these self-perceptions (Dutton, Dukerich, and Harquail, 1994). In the same way, taking place of individuals within different social groups such as race, gender or team naturally develops as an extension of this self-perception (Breakwell, 1993). In other words, individuals enter into the social groups together with the characteristics of their own selves, rather than being abstracted from them. Organizations are also some sort of social groups in which people participate with their self. According to Tompkins and Cheney’s (1985) definition of job engagement, which is amongst the first definitions done in the literature, it is the perception of organizational engagement that individuals share their success and failure with the organization, feel sense of belonging, and also as an individual or group within the organization.

Kahn (1990) defines job engagement as a unique and important motivational factor that allows the individual to give his/her physical (behavioral), cognitive, and emotional energy to the work he/she does. Moreover, it is also defined as the level of attachment to the organizational characteristics of the content of self-context (Tüzün and Çağlar, 2008). It is the positive, fulfilling state of mind, most commonly characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption (Halbesleben & Wheeler, 2008).

Through job engagement, employees tend to see themselves as a part of their organizations more and see themselves as a representative of their organization against the external environment (Turunç and Çelik, 2010). Besides, Bakker et al. (2011) sees engagement of employees with their organizations as one of the physical, psychological and organizational requirements of the business. Finally, organizational identification can be summarized as the level of volunteerism in which employees in the work processes are physically and emotionally engaged in business associations (Haynie, Mossholder, & Harris, 2016).

Efraty, Sirgy and Claiborne (1991), which is one of the studies in the literature on job engagement, suggest that personal alienation has a negative influence on job engagement. Wegge et. al. (2006) state that improvements in motivation and satisfaction at the workplace increase job engagement and productivity of employees. According to Dick et. al. (2007), there is a significant relationship between leadership and engagement, and leadership plays a key role in engagement of employees with their organization. According to Knight and Haslam (2010), another study examining the job engagement of top management and employees; the physical and psychological unhappiness that arises when job engagement is low is related to the attitude of the management level. According to Fieseler et. al. (2015), job engagement changes according to the demographic characteristics, and there is a positive relationship between organizational trust and job engagement.

When we look at the relationship between job engagement and business performance, we see that engagement and embedding each shared unique variance with in-role performance (Halbesleben and Wheeler, 2008). According to Bakker and Leiter (2010), there is a positive relationship between job engagement and performance, just as in job satisfaction and psychological wellbeing.

According to Grumman and Saks (2011), there is a direct relationship between job engagement and job performance. Moreover, engaged employees are likely to perform extra-role behaviors, perhaps because they are able to “free up” resources by accomplishing goals and performing their tasks efficiently, enabling them to pursue activities that are not part of their job descriptions (Christian et. al., 2011). In addition, according to the findings of Bakker et. al.’s (2012) research on workers with proactive personality, proactive personality had a positive relationship with in-role performance through job crafting and work engagement. According to Gabler et. al. (2014), while job engagement increases sales performance, low job engagement leads to a decline in sales performance. Finally, employee engagement have a significant impact on employee performance (Anitha, 2014).

Research Method

The questionnaire method was used to collect research data by face-to-face interactions. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyzes were carried out to determine whether scale validity and reliability analyzes and questionnaires constituting the research scales form the predicted factor structure. Then the research model and related hypotheses were tested with structural equation model. The total number of participants for this study is 314 people who are working in organizations in different levels. Emotional intelligence scale was used by KS Law, Wong and Song (2004) and job engagement scale belongs to Rich, Lepine and Crawford (2010) and lastly organizational performance scale was used by Prieto and Revilla (2006).

Our research model is shown below;

See Full Size >

Conclusion and Discussions

The effect of job engagement on organizational performance is an undeniable fact today. There is a relationship between the level of engagement with the organization and the energy which is spent by the employees in a motivated way for the organizational purposes. The relationship between either organizational performance and job engagement or job performance and organizational engagement is examined by Kahn (1990, 1992), Rich et al. (2010), Halbesleben & Wheeler (2008), Bakker & Leiter (2010), Christian, Garza, & Slaughter (2011) and Bakker, Tims, & Derks (2012) in the literature. The effect of the organizational engagement on performance, which was developed by Khan (1990) in the theoretical context and which was empirically tested by Rich et al. (2010), is examined in this study in a different way.

The results show that emotional engagement and cognitive engagement have positive effects on organizational performance. Also, considering the gap in the literature, the moderator effect is investigated in the relationship between job engagement of emotional intelligence and qualitative performance. As a result, it is observed that emotional intelligence in relation to the job engagement and performance has an influence that increases this power. When examining the sub-dimensions of job engagement, it is understood that the emotional intelligence has a moderator role in the influence between emotional engagement and organizational performance. From these findings, it has been shown that the professionals and managers need to manage their employees’ emotional intelligence. Within this mind, it will also be beneficial for managers to give importance not only to the analytical intelligence but also to the emotional intelligence functions in their organization; because, the results of the study show that job engagement affects organizational performance more strongly in employees with high emotional intelligence.

Performance measures are based on subjective perception, which is a limitation for the study. The use of objective performance measures are recommended in the future studies. Also, there are some shortages for generalization because the study has a cross-sectional study area. In order to overcome this deficiency, it will be useful to carry out studies involving employees from different sectors and longitudinal studies. Research on the role of different individual and organizational elements (cultural intelligence, organizational support, leadership etc.) in the relationship between job engagement and performance is a recommendation that will contribute to the development of the literature.

References

1. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological bulletin, 103(3), 411.
2. Anitha, J. (2014). Determinants of employee engagement and their impact on employee performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 308-323.
3. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 16(1), 74-94.
4. Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. (1991). Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Administrative science quarterly, 421-458.
5. Bakker, A. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2010). Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research. Psychology Press.
6. Bakker, A. B., Tims, M., & Derks, D. (2012). Proactive personality and job performance: The role of job crafting and work engagement. Human relations, 65(10), 1359-1378.
7. Bakker, A., Albrecht, S., & Leiter, M. (2011). Key questions regarding work engagement. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 4-28.
8. Breakwell, G. M. (1993). Social representations and social identity. Papers on social representations, 198-217.
9. Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 89-136.
10. Cote, S., & Miners, C. T. (2006). Emotional intelligence, cognitive intelligence, and job performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(1), 1-28.
11. Dick, R., Hirst, G., Grojean, M. W., & Wieseke, J. (2007). Relationships between leader and follower organizational identification and implications for follower attitudes and behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80(1), 133-150.
12. Doğan, S., & Şahin, F. (2007). Duygusal zekâ: tarihsel gelişimi ve örgütler için önemine kavramsal bir bakış. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 16(1).
13. Dong, Y., Seo, M.-G., & Bartol, K. M. (2014). No pain, no gain: An affect-based model of developmental job experience and the buffering effects of emotional intelligence. Academy of Management Journal, 57(4), 1056-1077.
14. Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and member identification. Administrative science quarterly, 239-263.
15. Efraty, D., Sirgy, M., & Claiborne, C. (1991). The effects of personal alienation on organizational identification: a quality-of-work-life model. Journal of Business and Psychology, 57-78.
16. Fieseler, C., Meckel, M., & Ranzini, G. (2015). Professional Personae‐How Organizational Identification Shapes Online Identity in the Workplace. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 153-170.
17. Gabler, C. B., Rapp, A., & Richey, R. G. (2014). The effect of environmental orientation on salesperson effort and participation: the moderating role of organizational identification. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 34(3), 173-187.
18. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence. Bantam Books. Michigan University.
19. Goleman, D. (1998). Working with Emotional Intelligence. Bloomsbury Publishing.
20. Gruman, J. A., & Saks, A. M. (2011). Performance management and employee engagement. Human Resource Management Review, 21(2), 123-136.
21. Gürbüz, S., & Yüksel, M. (2011). Çalışma ortamında duygusal zekâ: İş performansı, iş tatmini, örgütsel vatandaşlık davranışı ve bazı demografik özelliklerle ilişkisi. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 9(2), 174-190.
22. Hair, J. F. J., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis Seventh Edition Prentice Hall.
23. Halbesleben, J. R., & Wheeler, A. R. (2008). The relative roles of engagement and embeddedness in predicting job performance and intention to leave. Work & Stress, 22(3), 242-256.
24. Haynie, J., Mossholder, K., & Harris, S. G. (2016). Justice and job engagement: The role of senior management trust. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 889–910.
25. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), 1-55.
26. Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2011). Innovation, organizational learning, and performance. Journal of business research, 64(4), 408-417.
27. Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of management journal, 33(4), 692-724.
28. Knight, C., & Haslam, S. A. (2010). The relative merits of lean, enriched, and empowered offices: an experimental examination of the impact of workspace management strategies on well-being and productivity. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 158.
29. Law, K. S., Wong, C. S., & Song, L. J. (2004). The construct and criterion validity of emotional intelligence and its potential utility for management studies. Journal of applied Psychology, 89(3), 483.
30. Oral, T. (2015). Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi . Duygusal Zeka - Çalışan Performansı İlişkisi: Bir Saha Araştırması. İstanbul: Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
31. Prieto, I. M., & Revilla, E. (2006). Learning capability and business performance: a non-financial and financial assessment. The Learning Organization, 13(2), 166-185.
32. Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of management journal, 53(3), 617-635.
33. Rosete, D., & Ciarrochi, J. (2005). Emotional intelligence and its relationship to workplace performance outcomes of leadership effectiveness. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(5), 388-399.
34. Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi‐sample study. Journal of organizational Behavior, 25(3), 293-315.
35. Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, cognition and personality , 185-211.
36. Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2012). A Beginner's Guide to Structural Equation Modeling. Routledge.
37. Sudak, M. K., & Zehir, C. (2013). Types of Personality, Emotional Intelligence, With a Study on the Relationship Between Job Satisfaction. Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 141-166.
38. Turunç, Ö., & Çelik, M. (2010). Algılanan Örgütsel Desteğin Çalışanların İş-Aile, Aile-İş Çatışması, Örgütsel Özdeşleşme ve İşten Ayrılma Niyetine Etkisi: Savunma Sektöründe Bir Araştırma. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 14(1).
39. Tüzün, İ. K., & Çağlar, İ. (2008). Örgütsel Özdeşleşme Kavramı ve İletişim Etkinliği İlişkisi. Journal of Yaşar University, 3(9), 1011-1027.
40. Wagner, M. (2011). Corporate performance implications of extended stakeholder management: New insights on mediation and moderation effects.Ecological Economics, 70(5), 942-950.
41. Wegge, J., Dick, R. V., Fisher, G. K., Wecking, C., & Moltzen, K. (2006). Work motivation, organisational identification, and well-being in call centre work. Work & Stress, 20(1), 60-83.
42. Weick, K. E., & Roberts, K. H. (1993). Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative science quarterly, 357-381.
43. Wong, C.-S., & Law, K. S. (2002). The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence on performance and attitude: An exploratory study. The leadership quarterly, 13(3), 243-274.