See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/272877285

The relationship among emotional intelligence (EQ), organizational justice

(OJ), organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB)

Article  in  International Journal of Academic Research · January 2014

DOI: 10.7813/2075-4124.2014/6-1/B.30

CITATIONS READS

10 640

4 authors:

Osman Titrek Mahmut Polatcan

Sakarya University Karabuk University
79 PUBLICATIONS   406 CITATIONS    51 PUBLICATIONS   198 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Demet Zafer Gunes Gozde Sezen-Gultekin

T.C. Istanbul Kultur University Sakarya University
22 PUBLICATIONS   137 CITATIONS    36 PUBLICATIONS   170 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

2 nd International Conference on Lifelong Education and Leadership for ALL-ICLEL 2016 View project

3 rd International Conference on Lifelong Education and Leadership for ALL- ICLEL 17 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mahmut Polatcan on 08 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL of ACADEMIC RESEARCH Vol. 6. No. 1. January, 2014
O. Titrek, M. Polatcan, Demet Z. Gunes, G. Sezen. The relationship among emotional intelligence (EQ), organizational justice
(OJ), organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB). International Journal of Academic Research Part B; 2014; 6(1), 213-220.
DOI: 10.7813/2075-4124.2014/6-1/B.30

Library of Congress Classification: HD59-59.6

THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE (EQ),

ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE (OJ), ORGANIZATIONAL
CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOUR (OCB)*
1 2 1 1
Osman Titrek, Mahmut Polatcan, Demet Zafer Gunes, Gozde Sezen
1
Sakarya University, Faculty of Education, Sakarya,
2
Karabuk University, Faculty of Technical Education, Karabuk (TURKEY)
E-mails: otitrek@sakarya.edu.tr, mpolatcan@karabuk.edu.tr,
dzafer@sakarya.edu.tr, gsezen@sakarya.edu.tr

DOI: 10.7813/2075-4124.2014/6-1/B.30

Received: 10 Aug, 2013

Accepted: 25 Jan, 2014

ABSTRACT

The aim of the study is to analyze correlations among EQ, OJ and OCB in schools. The participants
consist of 255 teachers at primary schools in Karabuk. The data were collected by researchers through
instruments of EQ (self-consciousness and emotion management), OCB, and OJ. For analysis, partial correlation
was conducted for determining the level of significance among the variables via path analysis, one of the
structural equation models was used. According to results, it has seen that there is an effect of EQ on OJ; OJ on
OCB directly and EQ on OCB indirectly in schools.

Key words: Organizational Justice (OJ), Organizational Citizenship Behaviours (OCB), EQ (self-
consciousness, emotion management)

1. INTRODUCTION

Emotional intelligence (EQ) has received a substantial amount of attention in the fields of human
resources, leadership, management (OBHRM) etc. in recent years. There has also been considerable popular
interest in EQ, and EQ books (Goleman, 1995; Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002). Recent research highlights
the importance of EQ as a predictor in important domains such as academic performance, job performance,
negotiation, leadership, trust, work–family conflict, and stress (Ashkanasy & Daus, 2002; Fulmer & Barry, 2004;
Humphrey, 2002, 2006; Jordan, Ashkanasy, & Hartel, 2002) and citizenship (Spector & Fox, 2002). In the
literature, citizenship has correlations among some variables like trust, stress, performance and justice as well.

1.1. Organizational Justice (OJ)

The distribution of gains in an organizations, the procedures used in gain distribution decisions and the
rules and social norms developed related to the requirements of interaction among individuals explains OJ (Folger
& Cropanzano, 1998). The concept of OJ is based on the equation model developed by Adams (1965) (cited:
Altintas, 2006:21). In this theory, employees who are the working in an organization individually compare their
gains with others working in different organizations but in similar situations. At the end of this comparison, they
can develop attitudes towards their organization, principals and their specific job (Greenberg, 1996).
Employees expect to see the equal application of the rules for everyone, to be paid equally for equal work
to have equal rights in vacations and to benefit from the social facilities equally with the others. The rules of the
organization, the way of applying these rules and interaction among individuals are within the focus of justice
perception (Barling & Michelle, 1993; Ozdeveci, 2004:78). In literature, OJ has a great role in organizational
management and it is classified into two groups (Martin & Bennett, 1999; McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992; Greenberg,
1990; Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Ozdeveci, 2004:78):
Distributer justice refers to ideal reward amount which the worker deserves related to the value he/she
contributes to the organization. Salary, performance transmission (feedback), working conditions, promotion or
reward can all be forms of compensation (Martin & Bennett, 1996; cited: Ozdeveci, 2004:78).

*
A part of this study has been used as an oral presentation in “6th National Educational Management Congress” held in
Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus on 16-17 April, 2011.

Baku, Azerbaijan| 213

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL of ACADEMIC RESEARCH Vol. 6. No. 1. January, 2014
Procedural justice is defined as the justice level of method, procedure and policies which are used in some
instruments such as measurement and identification of salary, promotion, financial facilities, working conditions
and performance assessment (Greenberg, 1990; cited: Ozdeveci, 2004:78).

1.2. Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB)

OCB can be considered to be an individual’s voluntary work beyond the role assigned to him/her in the
organization (Bateman & Organ, 1983; Turnipseed, 2009:201). Smith, Organ and Near (1983) define OCB as an
behaviours which individuals exhibit voluntarily with the aim of helping others in the organization in addition to the
official role of the individual in the organization (cited: Titrek, 2009:3). In other words, individual or non-compulsory
behaviour which is not defined directly or indirectly by a formal reward system and which enables effective
functions of the organization and do not challenge progress in collaboration furthermore they are not a
requirement of fulfilling a job description mentioned clearly in an employment contract or role requirements but
which avoid any punishment in case there is a breakdown stemming from a personal preference. Therefore, OC
behaviour can be regarded as subset of pro-social organizational behaviour (Cetin et al., 2003:41). In recent
years, there have been many studies on (Bateman & Organ, 1983; Moorman, Nichoff & Organ, 1993; Podsakoff &
MacKenzie, 1996; Organ, 1997; DiPaola, Tarter & Hoy, 2005; Somech & Ron, 2007; Turnipseed & Wilson, 2009).

1.3. Emotional Intelligence

Salovey and Mayer (1990:189) defined emotional intelligence as “the subset of social intelligence that
involves the ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to
use this information to guide one’s thinking and actions”. Later Goleman (1995;1998), added social dimensions to
the definition of emotional intelligence and he identified the five 'domains' of EQ as follows:

 personal competence - self-awareness, self-regulation, self-motivation

 social competence - social awareness, social skills

1.3.1. Self-awareness
Is an emotional sufficiency which is a self-awareness an individual’s mood and opinions about the mood
(Salovey & Mayer, 1990) and covers preference and intuitions of the individual (Goleman, 1998). Individual needs
to notice firstly his/her own feelings in order to be able to understand how to respond to other individuals,
opportunities and events during his/her life. So, self-awareness is the most important one among the EQ skills
(Marshall, 2001; cited: Dogan & Demiral, 2007:214). It is an objective perception which keeps one during the
periods of bad feelings. Self- awareness people can identify how their feelings affect themselves and their
working performance. Individuals having these merits know where and why they proceed and they talk frankly of
the effect of their feelings on their work. They trust themselves to undertake all the responsibilities in work life
(Goleman et al., 2002).

1.3.2. Emotion management (Self-control)

Is the ability of an individual to manage his/her feelings, motives, and resources s/he possess (Poskey,
2006). This means that the individual is neither enslaved to passions nor suppresses his/her feelings. That is to
explain experience their feelings in balanced and harmony. The goal is not to suppress feelings but balance them.
Each feeling has an intrinsic value and importance. When feelings are suppressed extremely, this ends up with
dullness and distance so they become excessive and insistent when they are out of control (Goleman, 1995).
According to Goleman (1998), emotion management can be defined as arranging and managing mood,
stimulation and resources. It is important in managing emotions to control and arrange the feelings. The most
important components of emotional verbalization reflection are oral and body language. Individuals who can’t
control their anger have much difficulty in their private life.

1.3.3. Relationship Among OJ, OCB and EQ (Self- awareneness and emotion management)
Poyraz and et al. (2009), conducted a study on the influence of OJ perceptions on OCB, found out that,
interaction justice influence is higher than distribution and procedure justice influence on explaining organizational
behaviour. Bas and Senturk (2011) studied OJ, OCB and organizational confidence level and observed that OCB
and confidence perception doesn’t change in terms of educational background and gender but changes in terms
of seniority. Polat and Celep (2008) studied high school teachers’ OJ, confidence and citizenship behaviours and
teachers’ organizational justice, confidence and citizenship perceptions are high; and OJ, confidence and OCB
are compatible with all their subsets. OJ and confidence have a great role in showing OCB of teachers. Isbasi
(2000) searched for correlation between organizational trust, justice and citizenship while Kamer (2001) searched
for correlation between organizational trust, OCB and organizational commitment.
Songur et al (2008) claim that OJ is the processor of OCB and Bolino and Tumley (2003) assert that good
citizenship behaviour has an influence on the behaviours of workers in the organization such as developing and
maintaining positive behaviours, tolerating improper behaviours, etc.; Organ (1990) claim that OCB affects
motivation and Organ and Lingl (1995) claim that OCB affects job satisfaction as well. Paterson and Cary’s (2002)
research showed that integrating cognitions and emotions explained the effects of employees’ acceptance of
downsizing and other work attitudes. In the recent years, especially EQ theory is defining important related
emotions. Thus, according to this study they tried to investigate the relationships between EQ, transformational
leadership and OCB. Modassir and Singh (2008) also found out that leaders’ EQ enhances OCB. Moreover,
Ozdevecioglu (2003) point out that there are relationships between perceived OJ, hostile behaviours and clear

214 | PART B. SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES www.ijar.eu

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL of ACADEMIC RESEARCH Vol. 6. No. 1. January, 2014
aggressive behaviours. The existence of hostile and clear aggressive behaviours may lead to the perception that
these feelings aren’t managed properly and EQ level is low in that organization. Can (1999:215-216) alleges that
these behaviours, especially of the leader of the organization, effect these perceptions. Furthermore, if the leader
himself/herself (self-aware) and the employees in the organization trust him, negative behaviours decrease. It can
be asserted that the decrease of negative behaviours in the organization has a positive effect on human
relationships and emotions. Surely these positive relationships affect justice perception and justice perception
effects OCB. Based on this literature, it can be asserted that OJ perception is related to OCB and basics of EQ
espeacilly self-awareness and emotion management dimensions. That’s why, we used them together in the
analysis and we named them EQ. The focus of this study conducted on teacher in educational foundations has
three variables identified as EQ, OJ and OCB. The model of the study and the hypothesis of the model are shown
in Figure 1.

Fig. 1. Research model and hypotheses

Three hypothses can be developed for the research model;

H1 : There is a positive relationship between emotional intelligence and organizational justice

H2 : There is a positive relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship.
H3 : There is a positive relationship between emotional intelligence and organizational citizenship.

2. METHODOLOGY

In this section, some information about research method, sample, data-gathering instruments and data
analysis is presented. Since the study is descriptive, survey and structural equation models based on theory were
used.

2.1. Sample
The sample of the study was comprised of 688 teachers who teach in primary schools in the city of
Karabuk in the 2010-2011 academic year. The sample was comprised of 320 teachers, but feedback was
received from 255 teachers. 115 of them were female (% 45,1) and 140 of them were male (%54.9). Cohran’s
sample size formula was used to specify the sample size and it was decided that 247 participants were needed in
order to achieve 95 percent trust level. Permission for participations was obtained from related chief department
of National Minister and participants voluntarily participated in research. Completion of the scales was anonymous
and there was a guarantee of confidentiality.

2.2. Normality Test

The data gathered from 255 individuals is compatible with the normal distribution in order to conclude the
model as valid. Normality test is used to determine whether the data is compatible with the normal distribution.
For a 5% confidence interval of skewness and kurtosis, the statistical value interval should be ±2.58; for a 1%
confidence interval it should be ±1.96 (Liu et al., 2005; cited: Yucenur and et al, 2011:161-162). Looking at the
skewness and kurtosis tests results, the lowest value for all variables is -1,530, the highest value is 1,268; the
lowest value for kurtosis is -0,864, the highest value is 0,915, which are within the expected interval (5%
confidence interval). The last step of the normality test is the Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test in this test, compatibility
of distribution sample data and theoretic distribution are examined. It shows that since the results value of
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test’s significance level is above 0.05 (p>.05), the data are compatible with the distribution.
Since the test results of Kolmogorov-Smirnov are above this value, all data in test results have high significance
level. Except for the OJ variable, all data pass the normality test (see Table 1).

Table 1. Kolmogorov-Simirnov Test values of the data

Variables Positive(+) Negatif(-) Kolmogorov-Simirnov Z p

Organizational Citizenship ,065 -,075 1,200 ,000
Self-consciousness ,075 -,083 1,313 ,000
Emotion management ,042 -,106 1,694 ,000
Organizational Justice ,134 -,114 2,132 ,000

Baku, Azerbaijan| 215

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL of ACADEMIC RESEARCH Vol. 6. No. 1. January, 2014
2.3. Data Collection Instruments
The Organizational Citizenship Behaviours Scale was used in order to identify organization citizenship
behaviours of teachers. OCBS is a scale made up 12 items. The scale has a Five-point Likert type ranking from
“1- totally disagrees to 5- totally agree”. The original scale was developed by DiPaola, Tarter and Hoy (2005) and
was translated into Turkish and used as a reliability and validity tool by Tasdan and Yilmaz (2008). The scale has
a single factor and the real value of the scale is 5.48. The factor load values of the items in the scale vary
between.31 and.82. The variance the scale expressed is 45.55%. According to the OCBS and reliability analysis
results, the Cronbach Alpha is.87 (Tasdan & Yilmaz, 2008). Calculating the total scoring of two items in the scale
has been done adversely. The high score obtained from the scale shows the high organizational behaviour. Thus,
when data of available study and factor loading values were examined, it could be seen that it ranges from.31
to.77 and the scale itself explains 53.703% of it. In addition, according to reliability analysis, the Cronbach Alpha
of the scale is.84 (Titrek, 2009: 9-10). According to current data, it has been found that factor loading value
ranges between.33 and.60 and with a total explained variance 51.381 % in that single aspect. When the corrected
total item correlations were studied, it was found that they range from.29-.70 and reliability level is.89.
The Organizational Justice Scale was used to identify organizational justice perceptions of teachers. OJS
is a measurement tool comprised of 10 items. The scale has a Five point Likert type ranking from “1.totally
disagree to 5.totally agree”. The scale was originally developed by Hoy and Tarter (2004) and adapted to Turkish.
Validity and reliability has been developed by Tasdan and Yilmaz (2008). The scale has a single factorial and real
value is 6.17. The scale, translated into Turkish by Tasdan and Yilmaz (2008), is aimed at measuring OJ level in
schools. Factor loading values of this scale vary between.44 and.89 (above.30) and according to the item
discrimination index, total correlations of all the items range between.39 and.85 (above.20). The scale is
comprised as a single factor and the variance it explains is 61.74 % of total variance. According to the reliability
analysis results about OJS and Cronbach Alpha is.92. The high score obtained from the scale shows significant
OJ behaviour (Tasdan & Yilmaz, 2008). According to current data, the factor load value ranges between.32
and.37 and the total explained variance is 58.151% in a single aspect. When corrected item correlations were
studied, they range from.49 to.82 with reliability level is.91.
In this research, we defined Emotional Intelligence (EQ) as having two sub-scales; 1. Self-awareness sub-
scale had 13 items in the pre-test. As a result of the pre-test analysis one factor was excluded because of a low
factor loading value. Factor loading values of the remaining 12 items were above.30 and a single factor explains
52.136% of total variance. The Alpha internal coherence coefficient which is calculated for the reliability of the
self-awareness sub-scale is.76. According to this, it has been accepted that the scale has internal coherence
(Titrek, 2005). According to current research values, factor loading values are between.28 and.61 and the total
explained variance is 37.550 % in a single aspect. When corrected total item correlations are studied, factor load
value ranges between.38 and.60 and the alpha reliability level is.83. 2. Emotion Management sub-scale has 15
items in pre-test and according to analysis results, factor loading values of all items in the scale are above.30 and
a single factor explains 56.220% of total variance. The Alpha internal coherence coefficient calculated for the
reliability of the sub-scale of arranging and managing the emotions is.80. Accordingly, it can be asserted that the
scale has internal coherence (Titrek, 2005). According to current research data, factor load value ranges from.35
to.75 and total explained variance is 57.400 % in a single aspect. When corrected total item correlations were
studied, they range from.34 to.55 and reliability level was.81.

2.4. Analysis of the Data

In this research, Pearson correlation coefficient and structural equation modeling was utilized to determine
the relationships between OJ, OCB and EQ dimensions (self-awareness and emotional management). The
variables which were entered in structural equation modeling were measured by summing the items of each
scale. These analyses were carried out via LISREL 8.54 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1996) and SPSS 13.0.

3. RESULTS

Table 2. Descriptive statistics, Cronbach’s α coefficients, and inter-correlations of the variables

Organizational justice Organizational Self-consciousness Emotion

citizenship beh. management
Organizational justice 1
Organizational citizenship beh. ,550** 1
Self-consciousness ,345** ,296** 1
Emotion management ,373** ,345** ,665** 1
Mean 42,87 49,43 52,51 65,54
Standart deviation 6,56 6,55 4,94 5,59
Cronbach’s α coefficients ,91 ,77 ,84 ,82

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

3.1. Descriptive Data And Inter-Correlations

When Table 2 is examined, it is seen that there are correlations between according to teachers’
perceptions, it can be asserted that there is a reasonable, positive and medium level significant relationship
between organizational justice and organizational citizenship [r(255)=,550; p<0,01]; and between self-
consciousness and emotion management skills [r(255)=,665; p<0,01]. It can be observed that the relationship
between other variables is positive but low level.

216 | PART B. SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES www.ijar.eu

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL of ACADEMIC RESEARCH Vol. 6. No. 1. January, 2014
Table 3. Evaluation results of structural equation model

Feasibility measures Good feasibility Acceptable feasibility Suggested model

X²/df ≤2 ≤5 2.07
RMSEA 0<RMSEA<0.05 0,05 ≤ RMSEA≤0,10 0.065
SRMR 0 ≤ SRMR ≤ 0,05 0,05<SRMR ≤ 0,10 0.076
RMR 0 ≤ RMR ≤ 0,05 0,05<RMR ≤ 0,10 0.047
NFI 0,95 ≤ NFI ≤ 1 0,90 ≤ NFI ≤ 0,95 0,89
NNFI 0,95 ≤ NNFI ≤ 1 0,90 ≤ NNFI ≤ 0,95 0,94
CFI 0,95 ≤ CFI ≤ 1 0,90 ≤ CFI ≤ 0,95 0.94
GFI 0,95 ≤ GFI ≤ 1 0,90 ≤ GFI ≤ 0,95 0.73
AGFI 0,90 ≤ AGFI ≤ 1 0,85 ≤ AGFI ≤ 0,90 0,70

3.2. Structural Equation Model Evaluation

Thanks to structural equation models, relationships among two or more variables can be observed at the
same time and deal with dependent and independent variables in a model as a whole and studies the feasibility of
model and available data with each other. In table 3, main feasibility indexes can be seen. In evaluation of this
model, degree of freedom in X² test is an important measurement. X² value of the model is 2328,43. Also,
proportion of X² value to degree of freedom is an important measurement in evaluation of the model. X²/df rate for
the research model is 2.07. Hypothesized model was examined via structural equation modeling (SEM) and Fig. 2
presents the results of SEM analysis, using maximum likelihood estimations. The model fitted well (Chi-square=
2328,43, df = 1125, p =.000, GFI =0.73, AGFI = 0.70, SRMR =.076, RMR=.047, NFI = 0.89, RFI = 0.88, IFI =
0.94, CFI = 0,94, CFI = 0.94, and RMSEA =.065) and it has been proved that all data related this model is highly
feasible and significant. In the structural equation model analysis, after the compatibility of the model and data
feasibility is tested, the relationships among variables are tested.

Fig. 2. Path analysis between EQ, organizational justice and organizational citizenship

In the first available equation, it can be seen that EQ has an influence of 0.38 on OJ. The 0.38 value in the
equation is an imputed value with a maximum possibility for the EQ, the 0.069 value in the parenthesis is
standard error of the imputed value and the 5.55 located at the bottom is t value. The t value can be obtained by
dividing the imputed value by the standard error. In order to consider regression value as significant in.05 levels,
the t value should be above 1.96. In.01 levels it should be above 2.56 (Schumacker & Lomax, 2004; Cited:
Yucenur and et al, 2011). The R² value shows that the OJ is explained through this equation at a 15% rate. In the
second available equation, OCB is considered as a dependent variable and OJ as an independent variable. When
we observed the values in the equation, it can be seen that the organizational justice value has an effect of 0.60
on organizational citizenship. R² value shows that organizational is explained through this equation at a 37% rate.
Considering the research model, subsets of EQ have an influence on OCB via the OJ value. In order to show this
relationship a third equation can be obtained from the former two equations. In this third equation, subsets of EQ
have an effect on OC at a 0.23 rate and the equation explains this relationship as a 5.5% rate. According to the
equality values above. we can state some hypothesis applications below;

Baku, Azerbaijan| 217

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL of ACADEMIC RESEARCH Vol. 6. No. 1. January, 2014
Hypothesis application:

H1: There is a positive relationship between EQ and OJ dimensions. The value obtained from the path diagram is 0.38.
Hypothesis 1 is accepted. OJ is an influent on EQ and the EQ is expressed at a 38% rate.
H2: There is a positive relationship between OJ and OCB. The value obtained from the path diagram is 0.61.
Hypothesis 2 is accepted. OJ is an influence on OCB at a 61% rate.
H3: There is a positive relationship between EQ and OCB dimensions. The value obtained from the path diagram is
0.23. Hypothesis 3 is accepted. EQ is an influence on OCB at a 23% rate.

4. DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

In this study the relationships among EQ, OJ, and OCB in schools were examined using structural
equation modeling. Findings have demonstrated that there are significant relationships between these variables.
Moreover, the goodness of fit indexes indicated that correlations among measures were explained by the model
and that its formulation was statistically acceptable (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
Firstly, as hypothesized, the model delineated that there is a positive relationship among EQ and its
subsets, OJ, and OCB. Thus, according to teacher perceptions there are correlations among EQ, OJ and OCB in
schools. Moroever, there is a positive but low correlation between school principals’ EQ level and teachers’
perception of OJ. In addition, based on path diagram results, we claim that there is an indirect positive correlation
between school principals’ EQ level and teachers’ OCB. OJ perception and capacities of the school principal
awaring of his/her own feelings -self-awareness- and emotion management while running the school. When the
findings are investigated, it can be seen that OCB in the school are highly related to OJ perception. It can be
conluded that OCB improves as long as the school principal manages intra-organizational aspects fairly, such as
work-distribution, enabling the work run, giving information fairly and clearly, or assuring the teachers are treated
equally in interaction and communication consequently. Besides, it can be asserted that, if s/he is aware of his/her
own emotions and can manage those feelings when s/he is higly-sensitive, justice perception and citizenship
behavior in the school will be positiviley influenced. Ozdevecioglu (2003) has detected that there is a relationship
between perceived OJ, hostile behaviors and clearly aggressive behaviors. Thus, aggressive behaviors are a
reflect on negative feelings. According to Titrek (2010), negative feelings have an important infuluence which is
studied in the context of emotion management of EQ. Aggresiveness is the concrete form of failing to manage the
feelings. Moreover, based on these results we can claim that emotional intelligence of school principal’s affecting
OCB and OJ in schools and these results are compatible with other research results (Fisher, & Ashkanasy, 2000;
Daus & Ashkanasy, 2005; Carmeli & Josman, 2006; Yunus, Ghazali, & Hassan, 2011; Di Fabio, & Palazzeschi,
2012).
According to Folger and Konovsky (1989), fair behavior of school principals might lead one to conclude
that it has a pioneering role in forming confidence and detecting its level. A high level relationship between OJ
and OCB might lead a conclusion that intra-organization justice creates confidence and citizenship behavior
increases in an organization. According to Polat (2009:108), the basic role in forming the justice perception in
schools belongs to school administrators, especially the principals. If the school principals distribute the rewards
and punishments justly, apply the regulations and the rules about the school to everyone fairly and consistently,
behave unselfishly, kindly, supportively promote positive feelings, remain aware of the positive and negative
aspects of their behaviors, the OJ will increase and organizational trust level will develop a positive organizational
climate and culture. Furthermore, OCB can be encouraged by positive emotion. Whereas negative emotion
induces avoidance tendencies to exit the situation, positive emotion induces approach tendencies to remain.
Furthermore, people in good moods will engage in behavior that will support their moods (Isen, 1984; Spector &
Fox, 2002). OCB may be less hidden, but since by definition, it is not required, employees are free to engage in it
or not. These are conditions that maximize the possible relations with emotion and other motivation-related
variables (Spector & Fox, 2002) especially OJ as well. These researches might suggest school principals to make
further study on these topics in order to increase OJ perception, OCB and the EQ level in their schools.
A system must be set in their organization which enables people to get what they deserve. Any unfairness
perception should be avoided. Resources, rewards and punishments should be distributed fairly. Research should
be conducted before distributing the reward and intra-organization rewards should be distributed justly. Moreover,
it should be assured that all individuals in the organization have equal importance for the administrators; the
employees should be trusted, esteemed and communicated with humanly. All the employees need to be
respected; loved and appreciated. School principals should adjust their distance or closeness fairly. Teachers
shouldn’t get privileges because they are close to their principal. If school principals achieve these, they can
develop positive emotions and climate in their schools.
Furthermore, it should be assured that teachers who have participatory management philosophy should
contribute to decisions. In this process, pre-judgement must be avoided; consistency and ethic rules should be
employed and all the decisions should be announced to everyone according to a fair protocol. School principals
should attend to applied events such as self-awareness, emotion management and empathy, in order to make
them aware of how their behavior affects their staff and organizational climate.
Employees must be accorded right to object to decisions and school principals should correct their
decisions when it is appropriate. That’s why there must be a confident climate which enables teachers to object in
case of negative applications. Finally, school principals should make necessary corrections after doing some
researches on intra-organizational justice perceptions, OCB and the effects of school principal behaviors on
teachers and the other staff their school.

218 | PART B. SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES www.ijar.eu

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL of ACADEMIC RESEARCH Vol. 6. No. 1. January, 2014
REFERENCES

1. Ashkanasy N.M. and Daus C.S. Emotion in the Workplace: The New Challenge for Managers.
Academy of Management Executive.16: 76–86 (2002).
2. Atalay I. Organizational citizenship and organizational justice. Unpublished MA Thesis, Afyon
Kocatepe University: Afyon, Turkey. (2005).
3. Altintas C.F. The results of the organizational relationship between individual values of justice and the
effect of the router: an analysis of the academic staff. Uludag University Journal of Management
Faculty. 7(2):19-40 (2006).
4. Bateman T.S. and Organ D.W. Job Satisfaction and good soldier: the relation between affect and
employee citizenship. Academy of Management Journal. 26 (4) :587-95 (1983).
5. Bas G. and Senturk C. The perceptions of in primary school teachers about organizational justice,
organizational citizenship and organizational trust. Educational Administration-Theory and Practice.
65:29-62 (2011).
6. Carmeli A. and Josman Z.E. The Relationship among emotional intelligence, task performance, and
organizational citizenship behaviours. Human Performance. 19 (4):403-419 (2006).
7. Celep C., Polat S., Elbir N. and Yapici E. Secondary school teachers' attitudes towards organizational
citizenship. The paper was presented at XIII. National Educational Science Congress. Inonu
University, Education Faculty, Malatya. 6–9 July 2004.
8. Cetin M., Yesilbag Y. and Akdag B., Organizational citizenship behaviour of teacher’s. Ataturk
Education Faculty Journal of Educational Science.17: 39–54 (2003).
9. Daus C. S. and Ashkanasy N. M, The case for the ability-based model of emotional intelligence in
organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior.26 (4): 453-466 (2005).
10. Dogan S. and Demiral O. The role and importance of EQ at organization’s success. Celal Bayar
University Journal of Economy and Management. 14 (1): 210-230 (2007).
11. Di Fabio A. and Palazzeschi, L. Organizational justice: personality traits or emotional intelligence? an
empirical study in an italian hospital. Journal of Employment Counseling.49 (1): 31-42 (2012).
12. DiPaola M.F., Tarter C.J. and Hoy W.K. in W.K. Hoy and C. Miskel (eds.). Measuring organizational
citizenship in schools: The OCB scale, educational leadership and reform. Greenwich, CN:
Information Age, pp. 319–342. (2005).
13. DiPaola M.F. and Hoy W.K. Organizational citizenship of faculty and achievement of high school
students. The High School Journal.88: 35–44 (2005).
14. Fisher C.D. and Ashkanasy N.M. The emerging role of emotions in work life: An introduction. Journal
of Organizational Behavior. 21(Spec. Issue): 123-129 (2000).
15. Folger R. and Konovsky M. A. Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise
decisions. Academy of Management Journal.32: 115-130 (1989).
16. Folger R. Justice, motivation, and performance beyond role requirements. Employee Responsibilities
and Rights Journal. 6(3):239-248 (1993).
17. Folger R. Organizational justice and human resource management. California United Kingdom: Sage
Publications. (1998).
18. Fulmer I. S. and Barry B. The smart negotiator: cognitive ability and emotional intelligence in
negotiation. International Journal of Conflict Management. 15: 245–272 (2004).
19. Greenberg J., The quest for justice on the job. Sage: Thousand Oaks: CA. (1996).
20. Goleman D. Emotional intelligence: why it can matter more than IQ. New York, NY: Bantam Books.
(1995).
21. Goleman D. Working with emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam Books. (1998).
22. Goleman D., Boyatzis R. and McKee A. Primal leadership: realizing the power of emotional
intelligence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. (2002).
23. Hoy W.K. and Tarter C.J. Organizational justice in schools: no justice without trust. International
Journal of Educational Management.18 (4): 250-9 (2004).
24. Hu L.T. and Bentler P.M. Cut off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structural analysis: conventional
criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling.6: 1–55 (1999).
25. Humphrey R.H. The many faces of emotional leadership. Leadership Quarterly. 13:493–504 (2002).
26. Isen A.M. Toward understanding the role of affect in cognition. in: R.S Wyer Jr., T.K Srull (eds.),
Handbook of social cognition, Vol. 3, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. (1984).
27. Isbasi J.O. Employees' trust in management and organizational justice perceptions on the role of the
formation of organizational citizenship behavior: the application of a tourism organization.
Unpublished MA Thesis, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey. (2000).
28. Jordan P.J., Ashkanasy, N.M. and Hartel C.E.J. Emotional intelligence as a moderator of emotional
and behavioral reactions to job insecurity. Academy of Management Review. 27:361–372 (2002).
29. Joreskog K.G. and Sorbom D. LISREL 8 reference guide. Lincolnwood: Scientific Software
International, IL. (1996).
30. Kamer M. The effects of organizational trust on organizational commitment and organizational
citizenship behaviours. Unpublished MA Thesis, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey. (2001)
31. Modassir A. and Singh T. Relationship of emotional intelligence with transformational leadership and
organizational citizenship behavior. International Journal of Leadership Studies. 4(1): 3-21 (2008).

Baku, Azerbaijan| 219

 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL of ACADEMIC RESEARCH Vol. 6. No. 1. January, 2014
32. Moorman R.H., Nichoff B.P. and Organ D.W. Treating employees fairly and organizational citizenship
behaviours: sorting the effects of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and procedural justice.
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal. 6: 209-225 (1993).
33. Organ D.W. The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. Research In Organizational
Behaviour. 12 (1) : 43-72 (1990).
34. Organ D.W. and Lingl A. Personality, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior. The
Journal Of Social Psychology. 135 (3): 339-350 (1995).
35. Ozdevecioglu M. A research on perceived organizational justice, in order to determine the effects on
aggressive behavior among individuals. Erciyes University, Journal of Economy and Management
Faculty. 21: 77-96 (2003).
36. Paterson J.M. and Cary J. Organizational justice, change anxiety, and acceptance of downsizing:
preliminary tests of an AET-Based Model. Motivation and Emotion. 26(1) (2002).
37. Podsakoff P.M., MacKenzie S.B. and Bommer W.H. Transformational leaders’ behaviors and
substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and
organizational citizenship behaviours. Journal of Management. 22 (2): 259-98 (1996).
38. Polat S. and Celep C. Secondary teachers' perceptions about organizational justice, organizational
trust, organizational citizenship behavior. Koceli University Journal of Education Faculty. 54: 307-331
(2008).
39. Poyraz K., Kara H. and Cetin A.S. A study into the Impact of organizational behavior, organizational
justice perceptions. Suleyman Demirel University Journal of Social Science Institute. 9 (1): 71-91
(2009).
40. Turnipseed,L.D. and Wilson L.G. Rom Discretionary to required the migration of organizational
citizenship behaviour. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies.15 (3): 201-216 (2009).
41. Somech A. and Ron I. Promoting organizational citizenship behavior in schools: The impact of
individual and organizational characteristic. Educational Administration Quarterly. 43 (1): 38-66
(2007).
42. Salovey P. and Mayer J.D. Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality. 9 (3):185-
211 (1990).
43. Songur N., Basim H.N. and Sesen H. Precedence role of organizational citizenship behavior
perception of justice. The Journal of Amme Idaresi. 41 (4): 79-100 (2008).
44. Spector P.E. and Fox S. An emotion-centered model of voluntary work behavior: some parallels
between counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior. Human Resource
Management Review. 12 (2): 269–292 (2002).
45. Tasdan M. and Yilmaz K. Organizational citizenship and organizational justice scales adaptation to
Turkish. TED Journal of Education and Science. 33 (150): 87-96 (2008).
46. Titrek O., Bayrakci M. and Zafer D. Teachers' views on organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of
Akademik Bakis. 17: 1-28 (2009).
47. Titrek O. Using the scale of the level of emotional intelligence in business development: Validity and
reliability studies. Journal of Turkish Psychological Counselling and Guidance. 3 (24) (2005).
48. Titrek O. From IQ’ to E Q: Manage emotions smartly (2. edition). Ankara: Pegem Akademi
Publishing. (2010).
49. Yunus N.H., Ghazali K., and Hassan C.N. (2011). The influence of leader's emotional intelligence:
Mediating effect of leader-member exchange on employees' organizational citizenship behaviors.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 3(3), 1125-1134.
50. Yucenur G.N., Demirel N.C., Ceylan C. and Demirel T. Structural equation model of the effect on the
value of service measurement of customer behavioral intentions. Journal of Dogus University.12
(1):156-168 (2011).

220 | PART B. SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES www.ijar.eu

View publication stats