This may be the author’s version of a work that was submitted/accepted

for publication in the following source:

Newton, Cameron, Teo, Stephen, Pick, David, Ho, Marcus, & Thomas,
Drew
(2016)
Emotional intelligence as a buffer of occupational stress.
Personnel Review, 45(5), pp. 1010-1028.

This file was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/221572/

c Consult author(s) regarding copyright matters

This work is covered by copyright. Unless the document is being made available under a
Creative Commons Licence, you must assume that re-use is limited to personal use and
that permission from the copyright owner must be obtained for all other uses. If the docu-
ment is available under a Creative Commons License (or other specified license) then refer
to the Licence for details of permitted re-use. It is a condition of access that users recog-
nise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. If you believe that
this work infringes copyright please provide details by email to qut.copyright@qut.edu.au

Notice: Please note that this document may not be the Version of Record
(i.e. published version) of the work. Author manuscript versions (as Sub-
mitted for peer review or as Accepted for publication after peer review) can
be identified by an absence of publisher branding and/or typeset appear-
ance. If there is any doubt, please refer to the published source.

https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-11-2014-0271
 Emotional Intelligence and the Job-Demands Resources Model
Cameron Newton
Queensland University of Technology
E-mail: cj.newton@qut.edu.au

Stephen T. T. Teo**
Auckland University of Technology
E-mail: drstephen.teo@gmail.com

David Pick
Curtin University of Technology
E-mail: david.pick@cbs.curtin.edu.au

Marcus Ho
Auckland University of Technology
E-mail: Marcus.ho@aut.ac.nz

Drew Thomas
Queensland University of Technology
E-mail: drewleighton@gmail.com

** Corresponding Author

1 
 
 Authors’ Bio

Dr Cameron Newton is Professor in the School of Management at the Queensland University

of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. He teaches quantitative research methods and
organisational psychology to undergraduate and postgraduate students. Cameron’s research
interests include organizational culture, occupational stress, biofeedback using heart rate
variability, and stress interventions.

Dr Stephen Teo is a Professor of HRM and Head of Management Department, AUT Business
School, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand. Stephen teaches HRM Strategy,
Business Research Methods and International HRM to undergraduate and postgraduate
students. He is currently examining resilience, stress, and productivity in the healthcare
sectors in Australia and New Zealand. Stephen has published in journals such as Human
Resource Management, Human Resource Management Journal, Journal of Vocational Behavior,
International Business Review, and International Journal of Human Resource Management.

David Pick is an Associate Professor in Management at Curtin University, Perth. His

research interests focus on the effects of change in public sector organizations, paying
particular attention to higher education and health services. He has had co-authored papers
published in a variety of journals including: Higher Education Quarterly, Globalization,
Societies and Education, Journal of Business Ethics, and Journal of Advanced Nursing. He
also regularly has co-authored papers accepted at conferences, most notably: The Academy
of Management, ANZAM, British Academy of Management and The Society for Research
into Higher Education.

Dr Marcus Ho is Senior Lecturer in the Management Department, AUT Business School,

Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand. Marcus' research and teaching interests
lie at the nexus of entrepreneurship and HRM. He has taught undergraduate, postgraduate
and executive courses in entrepreneurship and human resource management at the University
of Auckland and AUT. Marcus has a background as an organizational psychologist and HR
consultant and has consulted for a variety of small to large businesses.

Drew Thomas is a research associate working across the School of Management at the
Queensland University of Technology as well as the Wesley-St Andrew’s Research Institute,
both in Brisbane, Australia. Drew’s research interests include occupational stress, corporate
health and well-being, biofeedback using heart rate variability, and job satisfaction in the
non-profit sector.

2 
 
 Emotional Intelligence as a Buffer of Occupational Stress

Abstract

Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of emotional intelligence (EI) as a buffer to
job stressors on employee adjustment.

Design/methodology/approach
Based on the job demands resources model, this study examined 306 nurses in the healthcare
sector to test a model of job stressors, EI, and their interactions nursing adjustment outcomes
(i.e. job satisfaction and psychological health). The hypothesized model predicted that higher
trait EI would act as a buffer to the potential negative effects of stressors on employee
adjustment. Two-way moderated hierarchical multiple regression analyses was used to test
the model in addition to interaction effects.

Findings
The results of this study revealed mixed results in terms of the expected main effects of EI
and the five significant moderating effects. While some interactions support a buffering
hypothesis; contrary to expectations, a buffering effect was also found for those with low EI.

Research limitations/implications
The findings enable a better understanding how EI moderates the effects of stressors on
important work outcomes in healthcare. Additionally, the implications from this study allows
healthcare administrators and managers to improve staffing and work outcomes through
identifying and selecting staff who are characterized by higher trait EI or alternatively, train
staff in self-awareness and dealing with emotional behaviors.

Practical implications
HR managers could focus on selecting staff, who possessed higher trait EI for roles where
overload and ambiguity are endemic to the job performed. Training could also be used to
enhance EI among managers to focus on self-awareness and dealing with emotional
behaviors.

Originality/value
This study makes several contributions to understanding how EI moderates the relationships
between work stressors and workplace adjustment and wellbeing.

Keywords
Quantitative, Emotional Intelligence, Job Demands Resource Model, Job Stressors, Job
Satisfaction, Psychological Wellbeing, Healthcare, Nurses

Article Classification
Research paper

3 
 
Introduction

Occupational stress is a worldwide issue with implications for employees, organizations, and

economies. This is particularly the case for nurses whose jobs involve emotional work due to

pressures relating to the display and regulation of emotions when dealing with difficult

situations in their daily work (see Lim et al., 2010). Research on the stress-experiences of

nurses in Australia and their negative consequences are similar to other nations (see for

example, Donald et al., 2005; Hegney et al., 2013). The costs of stress are vast ranging from

poor attitudes (e.g., low satisfaction and intentions to leave), to health-related effects (e.g.,

poor psychological health and risk of morbidity and mortality: Newton and Teo, 2014).

Indeed, research has highlighted the importance of the effective management of occupational

stress to human resource practitioners, who are increasingly concerned with ensuring that

human resource practices promote employee health, positive job-related attitudes, and

performance (e.g. Ngo et al., 2005). Thus, it is imperative that organizational leaders and

managers understand the occupational stress process and integrate this knowledge into their

strategic and operational decision-making.

Due to the vast consequences of stress, researchers have invested considerable efforts

into identifying variables that directly impact employee adjustment (e.g., job satisfaction and

psychological wellbeing), or that moderate, or buffer, the negative effects of work stressors

on employee adjustment. Many buffers of stress have emerged, adding to the complexity, but

necessary relevance, of occupational stress theories. One construct that has received little

attention by researchers in a job stressor - employee adjustment context is the role of

emotional intelligence (EI; one’s ability to understand and manage their own and others’

emotions: Petrides and Furnham, 2006). EI is particularly relevant to a nursing content as

nurses often deal with very emotionally charged and personal issues relevant to patients,

families and nurses themselves which have the potential to magnify the experience of stress

4 
 
(see Karimi et al., 2014). Research in general has demonstrated that individuals with high EI

are able to influence improvements on a number of work outcomes such as success in job

performance and increased job satisfaction (Chiva and Alegre, 2008; Côté and Miners, 2006;

O’Boyle et al., 2011). Research has also found EI to play an active moderating role in that

understanding and regulating one’s emotions buffers the effects of work stressors on other

workplace outcome variables such as conscientiousness and performance (Ceasar et al.,

2004) and leader member exchange (Ceasar et al., 2004; Cheng et al., 2012; Poon, 2004).

However, the potential buffering role of EI in a work stress-employee adjustment context,

specifically in a high-emotion environment such as nursing, has yet to be explored.

This study directly examines the role that EI plays in the job stress-employee

adjustment process. Utilizing the job-demand resources (JDR) model (Bakker and Demerouti,

2007) as a theoretical framework, we test the hypothesis that EI has a moderating (buffering)

effect that mitigates the negative effects of job stressors on employee adjustment (defined as

job satisfaction and psychological wellbeing). In doing so, this study makes three specific

contributions in understanding the role of EI in occupational stress in a potentially

emotionally-laden context (i.e., nursing). First, we highlight the relationships of EI with job

stressors and employee adjustment variables. Second, the findings reveal the direct effects of

EI on employee adjustment. Third, the results explicate the interactive relationship between

job stressors and trait EI on employee adjustment. Last, this study draws attention to the

various organizational and managerial interventions that may be extended to staff in

managing their emotions when dealing with organizational work stressors. In the next

section we discuss the theoretical background to this study. This is followed by an

explanation of the data collection and analytical methods. We then explain our findings and

conclude with a discussion of the theoretical and practical implications.

The Job-Demand Resources Model

5 
 
The JDR model (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007) asserts that the characteristics of a job can be

broadly classified into two categories: job demands and job resources. Job demands require

sustained physical and/or psychological effort from employees (Demerouti et al., 2001).

Examples of job demands include time pressure, role ambiguity, and emotional labor.

Conversely, job resources refer to job characteristics that are functional in achieving work

goals, and that simulate personal growth and development (Demerouti et al., 2001). Examples

of job resources include positive and constructive performance feedback and participation in

decision-making.

The JDR model proposes that job demands and job resources evoke two independent

processes. Job demands act to exhaust employees’ physical and psychological resources,

leading to strain symptoms such as fatigue and burnout (Demerouti et al., 2001; Ilies et al.,

2010). Furthermore, high job demands are also negatively related to a number of job-related

outcomes, including job performance (LePine et al., 2005) and job satisfaction (Humphrey et

al., 2007). A meta-analysis by Örtqvist and Wincent (2006) suggests that role ambiguity is

generally associated with increased tension, indicators of burnout (i.e., emotional exhaustion,

low personal accomplishment) and negative job-related attitudes (i.e., job satisfaction,

turnover). Furthermore, higher levels of emotional exhaustion and less favorable levels of job

related attitudes are related to role conflict. Role overload is also related to increased tension,

exhaustion, intentions to quit, and lower organizational commitment. In this study, we focus

on overload (e.g., too much work), under-load (e.g., too little work), management

disagreement (e.g., conflicts with managers), and job ambiguity (e.g., lack of role clarity) as

job demands that are likely to have direct negative effects on measures of employee

adjustment.

6 
 
 H1: Nurses who perceive higher levels of the stressors (overload, management

disagreement, underload, and ambiguity) will perceive lower levels of job satisfaction

(job satisfaction characteristics, job satisfaction, relational, and psychological health).

EI as a Job Resource

EI is defined as the ability to recognize and regulate emotions in ourselves and others around

us and is often thought to guide one’s thinking and actions (Salovey et al., 1999). Two

distinct approaches differentiate the conceptualization and operationalization of EI, ability EI,

and trait EI. The ability EI approach stems from a cognitive-motivational framework (Mayer

and Salovey, 1997; Salovey and Mayer, 1990), mainly concerned with a person’s ability to

perceive, appraise, and express emotions. Ability EI tends to be measured by maximum

performance measures (e.g., Mayer et al., 2002). On the other hand, trait EI, which stems

from a personality framework, relates to behavioral tendencies and self-perceived capacity to

monitor one’s emotions (e.g. Petrides and Furnham, 2000). In other words, trait EI

encompasses both the ability to perceive and process emotional information, as well as other

motivational aspects of personal functioning (Zeidner et al., 2004). These approaches have

been critiqued primarily in terms of conceptualization and approach to measuring EI

(Cherniss, 2010; Matthews et al., 2007). This study utilizes the trait EI approach to

conceptualize the mechanisms of the EI-JDR model for a number of reasons. First, trait EI

refers to individual differences in emotion-based thinking (i.e., the way emotions distort

human judgement and decision) to explain the variance of work outcomes which aligns with

the JDR model (Chiva and Alegre, 2008). Second, trait EI illuminates the mechanisms

through which individuals (nurses in this study) regulate their emotions and how they utilize

this capacity to motivate their own and others actions to achieve work outcomes. Last, the

use of self-report EI measures (such as trait EI) are thought to provide a better insight into

individual (often private) processes and expressions of emotions in the workplace (Petrides,

7 
 
2010). Recent research echoes the above reasons for using trait EI to understand work

outcomes (see Di Fabio and Saklofske, 2014; Liu and Liu, 2013).

Empirical research examining EI demonstrates that individuals with higher EI have

more favorable outcomes such as lower levels of burnout, cynicism, engagement and

psychological health (e.g. Brunetto et al., 2012; Karimi et al., 2014; Kaur et al., 2013).

Considering the role of EI in regulating job outcomes, it is somewhat surprising that EI has

not been tested in the JDR relationship because job resources in the JDR model act as an

independent process to motivate and assist individuals in accomplishing their work goals.

From a JDR perspective, EI can theoretically be seen as a job resource for nurses as it

provides it’s a capacity for individuals to form constructive work and patient relationships

including regulating self and others’ behavior in highly stressful situations (Karimi et al.,

2014; McQueen, 2004). Nurses with high EI are thus better able to perceive, appraise, and

regulate their emotions and the emotions of others. This capacity acts as a resource by firstly

allowing nurses with high EI to manage their own perceptions and responses to stressful

situations and secondly through regulating and engaging others in the workplace to respond

and help achieve outcomes. It can be argued that nurses with high EI will have a better

ability to deal with the emotional consequences of stressful situations and report better job

satisfaction and wellbeing more generally. Indeed the empirical evidence is supportive of this

relationship with studies demonstrating that EI is related to job satisfaction and wellbeing in

the workplace (Kafetsios and Zampetakis, 2008; Yuntao et al., 2014).

H2: Nurses who demonstrate higher levels of EI will perceive higher levels of job

satisfaction (characteristics and workplace relations) and psychological health.

In addition to EI directly affecting job satisfaction and well-being, the JDR model also

proposes that job resources have the potential to moderate the negative effects of job

demands on well-being, as when job resources are high, the negative effect of job demands

8 
 
on health outcomes are reduced (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007). Kahn and Boysiere (1992)

suggest two mechanisms through which resources might buffer the negative impact of

stressors. First, resources might influence an individual’s appraisal of their job demands. In

the case of trait EI, individuals of higher EI tend to see things from a more positive

perspective (Schutte et al., 1998). Accordingly, when facing the same amount of demands,

individuals of high trait EI might see the demands as less threatening and requiring less effort

to cope with than those having lower trait EI. Second, resources might moderate the response

individuals have after the appraisal process. Therefore, they are able to manage the negative

emotions associated with job demands more effectively compared to those of low trait EI.

There is empirical research to support an EI buffer hypothesis. Jordan et al. (2002)

contend that high emotionally intelligent individuals experienced less negative emotions and

adopted less negative ways of coping in the face of job insecurity. In recent research on

nurses, Karimi et al. (2014) found that EI moderated the relationship between emotional labor

(defined as the ability to manage emotions to signal their empathetic concern) and

perceptions of job stress whereby those with higher EI were more protected from the

potential negative effects of emotional labor (such as the dissonance felt and expressed at

work i.e., conflicting emotions) on levels of job stress. Based on the JDR model and the

available empirical research, we hypothesize that EI will moderate the relationship between

job demands and job satisfaction.

H3: Higher levels of EI will buffer the potential negative effects of job stressors

(overload, management disagreement, underload, and ambiguity) on job satisfaction

(characteristics and relations) and psychological health.

Method

Participants

9 
 
An online research company sent an email containing a link to an online survey to 630

potential participants identified as professional nurses who were over 18 years of age and

residing in Australia. Overall, 306 useable surveys were completed (response rate 48.6%) by

nurses working in public (7.63%), private (26.8%), and non-profit (4%) health care

organizations. The majority were between 31-40 year of age (32.4%), followed by the 41-50

age group (25.5%). Two percent of participants were aged over 61. The remaining age groups

(18-25, 26-30, and 51-60) were approximately the same size (12.4%-14.4%). The majority of

the participants were female (73.9%).

Measures

Job stressors. Following Noblet et al. (2005), 34 items measured on a scale from 1

(rarely) to 5 (often) were initially used to measure context-specific administrative stressors.

This scale has been used extensively in a health context making it suitable as a measure of

relevant stressors in the present study. An exploratory factor analysis (principle axis factoring

with oblique rotation) conducted on the items revealed three reliable factors (overload,

management disagreement, and role ambiguity) from 15 items with the remaining items

cross-loading and therefore removed from further analysis. Example items include

‘disagreements/conflict with management’ (management disagreement), ‘unclear

expectation’ (ambiguity), and ‘busy, fast-paced workload’ (overload).

Research has demonstrated that underload has been identified as a potential stressor in

the nursing context (Ray and Apker, 2011) and as such was assessed using a 4-item scale the

emanated from a factor analysis of workload measures developed by Caplan et al. (1980).

Items were assessed on a scale ranging from 1 (rarely) to 5 (often and an example item is

‘experiencing lulls in work load’.

A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted, using AMOS 22.0 (Arbuckle,

2003), to assess the fit of the 4-category stressor model to the data. The analysis revealed a

10 
 
good fit of the model to the data (CFI = .96, NFI = .92, TFI = .95, RMSEA = .05, sRMR =

.05). See Table 1 for standardised estimates and squared multiple correlations.

-----------------------------------
Insert Table 1 about here
-----------------------------------

Emotional intelligence. Petrides and Furnham’s (2006) 30-item Trait Emotional

Intelligence Questionnaire – Short Form (TEIQue-SF) was used to assess trait EI. This

instrument has been used reliably in research previously (e.g. Burri et al., 2009). In the

survey, items were measured on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 5

(completely agree), for example, “I can deal effectively with people”. Negatively worded

items were recoded so higher scores indicated more favorable levels of EI.

Job satisfaction. Warr et al.’s (1979) 15-item job satisfaction scale was used to assess

job satisfaction. The items were measured on a 7-point scale, from 1 (extremely dissatisfied)

to 7 (extremely satisfied). An exploratory factor analysis (principle axis factoring with

oblique rotation) conducted on the items revealed two factors: satisfaction with job

characteristics (8 items) and satisfaction with relations (5 items), with 2 cross loading items

that were therefore deleted. The factor structure was further assessed using confirmatory

factor analysis revealing that the model was a good fit to the data: CFI = .97, NFI = .93, TFI

= .96, RMSEA = .05, sRMR = .04. An example item of satisfaction with job characteristics is

‘the amount of variety in your job’. An example item of satisfaction with relations is ‘the

recognition you get for good work’.

Psychological health. The General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12: Goldberg, 1972)

was used to assess perceived psychological health. The GHQ-12 has been advocated as a

measure of psychological health in occupational contexts (Banks et al., 1980). Employees

were asked about their general health over the past month by responding to a 4-point scale:

response options were 0 (more so than usual), 1 (same as usual), 2 (less than usual), and 3

11 
 
(much less than usual). An example item is “Have you recently felt that you’re playing a

useful part in things?”. The scoring procedure was adapted from Goldberg and Williams

(1988). Scores receiving a rating of 0 or 1 were recoded to 0, while scores receiving a rating

of 2 or 3 were recoded to 1. Six negatively worded items were then recoded so that a score of

1 represented favorable outcome. A global score for each participant was obtained by

summing all items, resulting in a scale with a range from 0 to 12.

Covariates. Gender of respondents was assessed as a dichotomous variable 1 (male)

and 2 (female). Gender was controlled for in all individual perception analyses in light of

research demonstrating gender differences in perceptions of some work stressors and

outcomes assessed in this study (e.g., Nelson and Burke, 2002). Gender was also controlled

for in this study as preliminary analyses revealed differences in some stressor and adjustment

variables between males and females.

Previous research (e.g., Chandraiah et al., 2003) suggests that older employees

sometimes perceive and experience different levels of stressors and strain compared to

younger people. However, in our study, we found that age was not significantly correlated

with any focal variable and was therefore not included as a covariate. Preliminary analyses

revealed no significant relationships or differences in focal variables as a function of other

demographics assessed (e.g., tenure and education).

Results

Exploratory factor analyses were used to establish the factors to use in the analyses to address

the hypotheses. Descriptive data, inter-correlations, and Cronbach’s (1951) alpha coefficients

for the aggregated focal variables can be seen in Table 2. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients

for all scales exceeded .70. These results indicate sufficient internal consistency,

demonstrating the items are reliable at measuring the constructs. Low to moderate

correlations can be seen between the independent variables, indicating that multicollinearity

12 
 
is not a serious threat to the analyses (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2001). Correlations revealed

that management disagreement, underload, and ambiguity were significantly positively

related to overload. Interestingly, underload was not significantly correlated with

management disagreement or ambiguity. All stressors were significantly related to lower

satisfaction, with overload significantly related to lower psychological health. Emotional

Intelligence was significantly and negatively related to only management disagreement and

ambiguity.

-----------------------------------
Insert Table 2 about here
-----------------------------------

Two analyses were conducted to assess the potential effects of common method

variance (CMV). First, Harman’s single-factor test was run via an exploratory factor analysis

in SPSS using varimax rotation (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The unrotated factor solution

revealed that the single factor accounted for 25% of total variance. This is well below the

level that could suggest a CMV problem. Second, AMOS was used to load all items onto an

additional latent CMV factor. Only an additional 1% of shared variance was accounted for by

this latent factor therefore CMV was not considered to be a threat in the present study.

Two-way Moderated Hierarchical Regression Analyses

Two-way moderated hierarchical regression analyses were used to test the hypotheses

(Tabachnick and Fidell, 2001). Predictor variables were mean-centered in order to

circumvent problems relating to multicollinearity between the main effects and two-way

interactions (see Aiken and West, 1991) with significant interactions plotted using the

method outlined by Jaccard et al. (1990). Gender was entered as a control variable at Step 1,

mean-centered main effects, stressors, and the moderator (EI), were entered at Step 2, and the

two-way interaction variables were entered at Step 3. The results are displayed in Table 3.

-----------------------------------
Insert Table 3 about here

13 
 
 -----------------------------------

Main effects. After partialling out the effects of gender, results indicated that inclusion

of EI and job stressor variables on Step 2 accounted for a significant increase in variance on

satisfaction with job characteristics (R2ch. = .26, F(5, 299) = 20.59, p < .001) and workplace

relations (R2ch. = .22, F(5, 299) = 16.39, p < .001). However, no significant relationship was

found for psychological health (R2ch. = .03, F(5, 299) = 1.56, ns). More specifically, partially

supporting H1, overload, management disagreement, and ambiguity were significantly and

negatively related to satisfaction with job characteristics (β = -.20, p < .01, β = -.27, p < .001,

and β = -.15, p < .01, respectively). Similarly, providing partial support for H1, overload,

management disagreement, and ambiguity were significantly negatively related to satisfaction

with workplace relations (β = -.28, p < .001, β = -.17, p < .05, and β = -.13, p < .05,

respectively). Failing to support H1, no significant main effects were found for stressors on

psychological health. Similarly, underload was not significantly related to the satisfaction

variables or psychological health. As per Table 3, H2 was not supported with the results

revealing no significant relationships between EI and the satisfaction variables or

psychological health.

Interactions. The interactions of the stressor variable and EI were entered as a set in

each regression analysis. They explained significant variance on satisfaction with job

characteristics (R2 ch. = .02, F(4,295) = 2.47, p < .05), and workplace relations (R2 ch. = .05,

F(4,295) = 4.57, p < .01), but not on psychological health (R2 ch. = .03, F(4,295) = 2.02, ns).

Overall five significant interactions were found which were plotted to further explore the

relationships.

First, supporting H3, two significant interactions were found relating to EI with

satisfaction with job characteristics and satisfaction with workplace relations (β = -.15, p =

.05, and β = -.31, p < .001: See Figures 1 and 2). Figure 1 shows that those with higher levels

14 
 
of EI did not experience changes in levels of satisfaction with job characteristics as role

overload increased (β = -.00, t(284) = -0.56, ns), however, levels of job characteristics were

significantly reduced for those with low EI as role overload increased (β = -.03, t(284) = -

4.42, p < .001). Similarly, Figure 2 shows participants with low EI experienced lower levels

of workplace relations as overload increased (β = -.52, t(284) = -6.23, p < .001), while those

with high EI experienced a significant increase in workplace relations (β = .16, t(284) = 2.13,

p < .05). It should also be noted that a similar pattern of results was found for the interaction

of role ambiguity and EI with psychological health, however, this interaction only neared

significance.

Significant interactions were also found for underload and EI on satisfaction with job

characteristics (β = -.14, p < .01), management disagreement with EI on satisfaction with

workplace relations (β = -.19, p < .05), and underload with EI on psychological health (β = -

.12, p < .05). However, these interactions reveal a stress buffering effect for those with low

EI, thus failing to support H3. Figure 3 shows that those with higher levels of EI experienced

lower levels of satisfaction with job characteristics as role underload increased (β = -.27,

t(284) = -2.91, p = .004), but that satisfaction with job characteristics did not significantly

differ for those with low job control as role overload increased (β = .05, t(284) = 0.67, ns).

Similarly, Figure 4 reveals that satisfaction with workplace relations reduced as management

disagreement increased for those with high EI (β = -.29, t(284) = -4.08, p < .001), while

those with low EI were buffered against this stressor (β = -.07, t(284) = -0.77, ns). The final

figure (see Figure 5) shows decreased levels of psychological health in those with high EI as

underload increases (β = -.45, t(284) = -2.30, p= .022), whereas those with low EI were

buffered (β = .09, t(284) = 0.60, ns). It should also be noted that two interactions neared

significance and displayed a similar buffering effect for low EI (i.e., management

15 
 
disagreement and EI on satisfaction job characteristics, and underload and EI on satisfaction

with workplace relations).

Discussion

This study applied the JDR model to investigate the interactive relationships between job

demands and trait EI on employee adjustment. To this end, three hypotheses were tested to

investigate the main connection between job stressors and employee adjustment, and the

effects of EI and employee adjustment. In doing so, we also examined the extent to which EI

is a resource that can be employed to buffer the potential negative effects of job stressors on

employee adjustment.

Implications for Research

Inspection of the main effects revealed mixed results. Supporting H1 and considerable

existing stress research (e.g., Newton and Teo, 2014): role overload, management

disagreement, and role ambiguity were related to lower levels of satisfaction with job

characteristics and workplace relations. Significant main effects were not found for role

underload on either satisfaction variables. Moreover, no significant effects were found for

any stressors on psychological health. These latter non-significant results could reflect that

the other stressors were of more importance to satisfaction, meaning the effect of underload

was relatively less important in a nursing context. Further, the non-significant results on

psychological health have been found in other research (e.g., Newton and Jimmieson, 2009).

It should be noted, however, that testing of the main effects of each stressor independent of

the remaining stressors revealed significant results on all outcome variables.

Interestingly, the results revealed no support for H2 as EI was not found to be

significantly related to either satisfaction or psychological health outcomes. Testing of EI

independent of other main effect variables also revealed non-significance. This result does

not support the findings of previous research that suggests a significant and positive

16 
 
relationship between emotional intelligence and employee adjustment (e.g., Kafetsios and

Zampetakis, 2008; Karimi et al., 2014). However, it can also be noted that the research into

EI and job satisfaction is somewhat mixed in terms of significant relationships. On the one

hand, there is evidence to suggest that the two are related (e.g., Sy et al., 2006), while others

have found the relationship to be more indirect (Lee and Ok, 2012; Meisler, 2014). There is

also research suggesting that the connection between EI and job satisfaction is more complex

than first assumed. In their study of nurses, Guleryuz et al. (2008) found that only some

dimensions of EI are positively related to job satisfaction (namely regulation of emotion and

use of emotion) while others have no connection (others’ emotional appraisal) or have a

negative relationship (self-emotional appraisal). Trivellas et al. (2013), in their study of

nurses, conclude that only the dimensions of self-emotional appraisal and use of emotion are

related to job satisfaction. In the light of this ambiguity, our results should be seen as

supporting the need to pay close attention to how various dimensions of EI are connected to

different measures of employee adjustment. In the case of the present research, all EI items

loaded onto one factor.

Overall, mixed results were received for the buffer hypothesis relating to EI (H3).

First, high EI was found to buffer the negative effect of role overload on satisfaction with job

characteristics and workplace relations as role overload increased. These two results provide

support for the JDR model and the notion that resources, in this case, the human capital

resource of EI, can act to mitigate the negative effects of stressors on the experience of strain.

Consequently, high EI employees may develop an understanding of the environment that

facilitates more positive and fewer negative emotional responses that pave the way for more

adaptive coping. Such a process is supported by a transactional approach to understanding

stress (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984).

17 
 
 However, three other significant interactions, and two near-significant interactions,

relating to role underload and management disagreement found that high EI acted more to

amplify the negative effects of these stressors on outcomes. Moreover, these interactions

revealed more buffering effects for those with low EI. These findings, contrary to what was

hypothesized, could be indicative of the differing natures of specific stressors. One possible

explanation is related to the nature of the stressors and how EI causes individuals to perceive,

appraise, and cope with different stressors. High role overload may impact those with low EI

as they do not have the resources to effectively cope with what is perceived as too much or

too difficult work. On the other hand, low EI may mean that individuals do not even start to

feel frustration or boredom caused by underload, or the tension caused by conflict with

supervisors.

While both overload and underload have been found to be stressors in previous

research, overload is associated with higher levels of strain than underload (Schultz et al.,

2010). Individuals with different levels of EI may perceive and appraise underload

differently. Indeed, it may be that low EI individuals perceive underload as a resource rather

than a stressor, either as paid downtime, an opportunity to relax, or an opportunity to

socialize with colleagues. It could be that high EI could increase perceptions of the potential

drawbacks of underload, including reduced performance figures, reduced hours, and potential

redundancies. With respect to management disagreement, it is possible that employees with

lower EI may be worse at perceiving, appraising, and expressing emotions around conflict or

unfair treatment than those with high EI. Employees with low EI might not perceive the

disagreement. This relative inability to perceive or appraise conflicts with supervisors may

negate the direct effect of this stressor as a job demand, or may buffer the negative impacts of

the stressor. As a result, these conflicts may not negatively affect workplace satisfaction as

they do in employees with high EI.

18 
 
 Another explanation can be offered with respect to differing results relating to the

interactive effects. In an effort to explain inconsistencies in the relationship between work

stressors and employee performance, Lepine et al. (2005) conducted a meta-analysis of the

Challenge Stressor-Hindrance Stressor Framework. Lepine et al. (2005) outline a framework

that differentiates between hindrance stressors (e.g., resource inadequacy, hassles, and

constraints which produce negative direct and indirect effects on performance via increased

strain and decreased motivation) and challenge stressors (e.g., urgency, high workload, and

role demands which are positively and directly associated with performance via increased

motivation and decreased employee strain). This framework differentiates potential positive

and negative effects of stressors on employee adjustment. If we consider underload and

management disagreement as hindrance stressors, it is possible that high EI facilitates a better

perception of these stressors, thus preventing employees from achieving performance goals.

Further, conceptualizing overload as a challenge stressor assists in explaining why higher EI

individuals were buffered against this stressor.

Implications for Practice

As well as the theoretical implications discussed above, this study also has practical

implications for human resource managers and senior management in health care

organizations. One implication is that there should be more focus on selective staffing as a

way of appointing new staff or to match staff with particular roles. This could help to

minimize turnover intentions. Selection tests can be used to identify those staff who are

characterized by higher trait EI for roles where overload and ambiguity are endemic to the

job performed (Iliescu et al., 2012). Alternatively, there is research to support the role of

training in enhancing EI among managers (Grant, 2007; Thory, 2013). Such training is

focused on self-awareness and dealing with emotional behaviors (Zammuner et al., 2013).

Yuntao et al. (2014), for example, demonstrated that training programs aimed at developing

19 
 
EI can help individuals disrupt the effects of unpleasant feelings leading to turnover intention.

This would, hopefully, better arm employees to deal with role pressures that are common to

many nursing roles.

Limitations and Future Research

In the current study, we relied on self-complete questionnaire in a cross sectional

sample. Hence, there is a possibility that our findings could be affected by common method

bias, however, two independent analyses have suggested that this threat is not likely. Future

studies could minimize this potential effect by collecting data from multiple sources and/or

across different time periods.

In addition, a far more nuanced approach in future studies may reveal the subtleties of

EI’s interactions with different stressors and outcomes. For example, future investigations

could benefit from other statistical analyses, such as structural equation modelling, and with a

larger sample which may reveal a different result for EI’s moderating role. Although EI was

found to mitigate the negative effects of stressors on the experience of strain in this study, the

self-completion nature of our survey and the specific time frame from which data collection

occurred may obfuscate the complex nature of EI’s effects on particular work stressors and

outcomes. Thus, future research could examine informant approaches to EI (see Conte,

2005), and longitudinal designs (Benson et al., 2012; Cheng et al., 2012).

A further limitation of this study is that it was restricted to the context of nurses in

Australia. Future studies could extend and replicate this study by collecting data from other

countries and occupations, to explore the generalizability of the findings of the present study.

However, this study has provided some insight into how particular job stressors interact with

job outcomes through the moderating role of EI in the nursing sector. Future work could

extend the Challenge Stressor-Hindrance Stressor Framework focusing attention on

individuals’ EI in particular job and professional contexts.

20 
 
Conclusion

This study set out to extend the understanding of the occupational stress-strain

process, particularly in expanding the role of trait EI as a buffer of stress in this process.

While this study largely supports the negative effect of most of the stressors’ measures on job

satisfaction, it revealed mixed results for EI as a buffer of these negative impacts, and no

support was found for EI as increasing workplace satisfaction in the high emotional labor

work of nurses. Contrary to what was hypothesized, low EI was found to buffer against the

negative impact of stressors. Further research into the role of EI in the stress-strain process

could assist in understanding differing psychological processes individuals use when faced

with different stressors.

21 
 
 References

Aiken, L.S. and West, S.G. (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting

Interactions, London: Sage Publications.

Arbuckle, J. L. (2003), “Amos 5.0 Update to the Amos User's Guide”, Chicago: Smallwaters

Corporation.

Banks, M. H., Clegg, C. W., Jackson, P. R., Kemp, N. J., Stafford, E. M., and Wall, T. D.

(1980), “The use of the General Health Questionnaire as an indicator of mental health

in occupational studies”, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 53, No. 3, pp.

187-194.

Bakker, A. B., and Demerouti, E. (2007), “The job demands–resources model: State of the

art”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 309–328.

Benson, G. M. R. N., Martin, L. E. R. N., Ploeg, J. P. R. N. and Wessel, J. P. (2012),

“longitudinal study of emotional intelligence, leadership, and caring in undergraduate

nursing students”, Journal of Nursing Education, Vol. 51, pp. 95-101.

Brunetto, Y., Teo, S.T.T., Shacklock, K., and Farr-Wharton, R., (2012), “Emotional

intelligence, job satisfaction, well-being and engagement: Explaining organisational

commitment and turnover intentions in policing”, Human Resource Management

Journal, Vol. 22, pp. 428-441.

Burri, A. V., Cherkas, L. M., and Spector, T. D., (2009), “Emotional intelligence and its

association with orgasmic frequency in women”, Journal of Sexual Medicine, Vol. 6,

pp. 1930-1937.

Caplan, R. D., Cobb, S., French, J.R.P. Jr., Harrison, R.V. and Pinneau, S.R. Jr. (1980), Job

Demands and Worker Health: Main Effects and Occupational Differences.

University of Michigan: Institute for Social Research.

22 
 
Ceasar, D., Frink, D. D. and Ferris, G. R. (2004), “Emotional intelligence as a moderator of

the relationship between conscientiousness and performance”, Journal of Leadership

and Organizational Studies, Vol. 10, pp. 2-13.

Chandraiah, S. C. A., P. Marimuthu, N. Manoharan. (2003), “Occupational stress and job

satisfaction among managers”, Indian Journal of Occupational and Environmental

Medicine, Vol. 7, pp. 6-11.

Cheng, T., Huang, G.-H., Lee, C. and Ren, X. (2012), “Longitudinal effects of job insecurity

on employee outcomes: The moderating role of emotional intelligence and the leader-

member exchange, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 29, pp. 709-728.

Cherniss, C., (2010), “Emotional intelligence: Toward clarification of a concept”, Industrial

and Organizational Psychology”, Vol. 3, pp. 110-126.

Chiva, R. and Alegre, J. (2008), “Emotional intelligence and job satisfaction: the role of

organizational learning capability”, Personnel Review, Vol. 37, pp. 680-701.

Cronbach, L. J. (1951), “Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests”, Psychometrika,

Vol. 16, pp. 297-334.

Conte, J. M. (2005), “A review and critique of emotional intelligence measures”. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26, pp. 433-440.

Côté, S. and Miners, C. T. H. (2006), “Emotional Intelligence, Cognitive Intelligence, and

Job Performance”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 51, pp. 1-28.

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., and Schaufeli, W. B. (2001), “The job

demands-resources model of burnout”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3,

pp. 499-512.

Di Fabio, A., and Saklofske, D. H., (2014), “Comparing ability and self-report trait emotional

intelligence, fluid intelligence, and personality traits in career decision”, Personality

and Individual Differences, Vol. 64, pp. 174-178.

23 
 
Donald, I., Taylor, P., Johnson, S., Cooper, C. L., Cartwright, S. and Robertson, S. (2005),

“Work environments, stress, and productivity: An examination using ASSET”,

International Journal of Stress Management, 12, pp. 409–423.

Goldberg, D. P. (1972), The Detection of Psychiatric Illness by Questionnaire, London:

Oxford University Press.

Goldberg, D. P., and Williams, P. (1988), A Users’s Guide to the GHQ, Windsor: NFER-

Nelson.

Grant, A. M. (2007), “Enhancing coaching skills and emotional intelligence through

training”. Industrial & Commercial Training, Vol. 39, pp. 257-266.

Guleryuz, G., Guney, S., Aydin, E. M., and Asan, O. (2008), “The mediating effect of job

satisfaction between emotional intelligence and organisational commitment of nurses:

A questionnaire survey”, International Journal of Nursing Studies, Vol. 45 No. 11,

pp. 1625-1635.

Hegney, D. G., Craigie, M., Hemsworth, D., Osseiran-Moisson, R., Aoun, S., Francis, K., and

Drury, V., (2014), “Compassion satisfaction, compassion fatigue, anxiety, depression

and stress in registered nurses in Australia: Study 1 results”, Journal of Nursing

Management, Vol. 22, pp. 506-518.

Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., and Morgeson, F. P. (2007), “Integrating motivational,

social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic of the summary and

theoretical extension work design literature”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92

No. 5, pp. 1332-1356.

Ilies, R., Dimotakis, N., and De Pater, I. E. (2010), “Psychological and physiological

reactions to high workloads: Implications for well-being”, Personnel Psychology,

Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 407-436.

24 
 
Iliescu, D., Ilie, A., Ispas, D. and Ion, A. (2012), “Emotional intelligence in personnel

selection: Applicant reactions, criterion, and incremental validity”, International

Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 20, pp. 347-358.

Jaccard, J., Wan, C. K., and Turrisi, R. (1990), “The detection and interpretation of interaction effects

between continuous variables in multiple regression”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25,

467-478.

Jordan, P. J., Ashkanasy, N. M., and Hartel, C. E. J. (2002), “Emotional intelligence as a

moderator of emotional and behavioral reactions to job insecurity”, Academy of

Management Review, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 361-372.

Kafetsios, K., and Zampetakis, L. A. (2008), “Emotional intelligence and job satisfaction:

Testing the mediatory role of positive and negative affect at work”, Personality and

Individual Differences, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 712-722.

Kahn, R. L., and Byosiere, P. (1992), “Stress in organizations”, In M. D. Dunnette and L. M.

Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Palo Alto,

CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Vol. 3, pp. 571–650.

Karimi, L., Leggat, S. G., Donohue, L., Farrell, G., and Couper, G. E. (2014), “Emotional

rescue: The role of emotional intelligence and emotional labour on well-being and

job-stress among community nurses”. Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 70 No. 1,

pp. 176-186.

Kaur, D., Sambasivan, M., and Kumar, N., (2013), “Effect of spiritual intelligence, emotional

intelligence, psychological ownership and burnout on caring behaviour of nurses: a

cross-sectional study”, Journal of Clinical Nursing, Vol. 22, pp. 3192-3202.

Lazarus, R. S., and Folkman, S. (1984), Stress, Appraisal and Coping, New York: Springer

Publishing.

25 
 
Lee, J., and Ok, C., (2012), “Reducing burnout and enhancing job satisfaction: Critical role of

hotel employees’ emotional intelligence and emotional labor”, International Journal

of Hospitality Management, Vol. 31, pp. 1101-1112.

Lepine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., and Lepine, M. A. (2005), “A meta-analytic test of the

challenge stressor-hindrance stressor framework: An explanation for inconsistent

relationships among stressors and performance”, Academy of Management Journal,

Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 764-775.

Lim J., Bogossian F. and Ahern K. (2010), “Stress and coping in Australian nurses: a

systematic review”, International Nursing Review 57, 22–31.

Liu, X., and Liu, J., (2013), “Effects of team leader emotional intelligence and team

emotional climate on team member job satisfaction: A cross‐level”, Nankai Business

Review International, Vol. 4, pp. 180 – 198.

Matthews, G., Zeidner, M. and Roberts, R. D., (2007). The Science of Emotional Intelligence:

Knowns and Unknowns, New York, Oxford University Press.

Mayer, J. D. and Salovey, P. (1997), “What is emotional intelligence?”, In P. Salovey and D.

Sluyter (Eds). Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence: Implications for

Educators, New York: Basic Books, pp. 3-31.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., and Caruso, D. R. (2002), Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional

Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) User Manual, Toronto, ON: MHS.

McQueen, A.C.H. (2004), “Emotional intelligence in nursing work”, Journal of Advanced

Nursing, Vol. 47 no. 1, pp. 101-108.

Meisler, G. (2014), “Exploring emotional intelligence, political skill, and job satisfaction”,

Employee Relations, Vol. 36, pp. 280-293.

Nelson, D. L., and Burke, R. J. (2002), “A framework for examining gender, work stress, and

health”, in D. L. Nelson and R. J. Burke (Eds.), Gender, Work Stress, and Health.

26 
 
 Washington: American Psychological Association.

Newton, C. J., and Jimmieson, N. L. (2009), “Subjective fit with organisational culture: An

investigation of moderating effects in the work stressor-employee adjustment

relationship”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 20 No. 8,

pp. 1770-1789.

Newton, C. J., and Teo, S.T.T. (2014), “Identification and occupational stress: A stress

buffering perspective”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 89-113.

Noblet A., McWilliams J., Teo S.T.T. and Rodwell J.J. (2005), “Work characteristics and

employee outcomes in local government”. The International Journal of Human

Resource Management, Vol. 17 No. 10, pp. 1804–1818.

Ngo, H., Foley, S., and Loi, R. (2005), “Work role stressors and turnover intentions: A study

of professional clergy in Hong Kong”, The International Journal of Human Resource

Management, Vol. 16 No. 11, pp. 2133-2146.

O'Boyle, E. H., Humphrey, R. H., Pollack, J. M., Hawver, T. H. and Story, P. A. (2011),

“The relation between emotional intelligence and job performance: A meta-analysis”,

Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 32, pp. 788-818.

Örtqvist, D., and Wincent, J., (2006), “Prominent consequences of role stress: A meta-

analytic review”, International Journal of Stress Management, Vol. 13, pp. 399-422.

Petrides, K. V., and Furnham, A. (2000), “On the dimensional structure of emotional

intelligence”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 313-320.

Petrides, K. and A. Furnham (2001), “Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric

investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies”, European Journal of

Personality, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 425-448.

27 
 
Petrides, K. V. and Furnham, A. (2006), “The role of trait emotional intelligence in a gender-

specific model of organizational variables”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology,

Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 552-569.

Petrides, K. V. (2010), “Trait emotional intelligence theory”. Industrial & Organizational

Psychology, Vol. 3, pp. 136-139.

Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y. and Podsakoff, N. P. (2003), “Common

method biases in behavioural research: a critical review of the literature and

recommended remedies”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88, pp. 879-903.

Poon, J. M. L. (2004), “Career commitment and career success: Moderating role of emotion

perception”, Career Development International, Vol. 9, pp. 374-390.

Ray, E. B., and Apker, J. (2011), “A review of research in health organizations”. In

Thompson, T. L., Parrott, R., and Nussbaum, J. F. (Eds.) The Routledge Handbook of

Health Communication. London: Routledge.

Salovey, P. and Mayer, J. D. (1990), “Emotional intelligence”, Imagination, Cognition, and

Personality, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 185-211.

Salovey, P., Bedell, B. T., Detweiler, J. B., and Mayer, J. D. (1999), Coping Intelligently:

Emotional Intelligence and the Coping Process, New York: Oxford University Press.

Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T., Golden, C. J., and

Dornheim, L. (1998), “Development and validation of a measure of emotional

intelligence”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 167-177.

Shultz, K. S., Wang, M., and Olson, D. A. (2010), “Role overload and underload in relation

to occupational stress and health”, Stress and Health, Vol. 26 No.2, pp. 99-111.

Sy, T., Tram, S., and O’Hara, L. A. (2006), “Relation of employee and manager emotional

intelligence to job satisfaction and performance”. Journal of Vocational Behavior,

Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 461-473.

28 
 
Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2001), Using Multivariate Statistics. New York;

HarperCollins.

Thory, K. (2013), “Teaching managers to regulate their emotions better: Insights from

emotional intelligence training and work-based application”, Human Resource

Development International, Vol. 16, pp. 4-21.

Trivellas, P., Gerogiannis, V., and Svarna, S. S. (2013), “Exploring workplace implications of

emotional intelligence (WLEIS) on hospitals: Job satisfaction and turnover

intentions”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 73, pp. 701-709.

Warr P., Cook J. and Wall T. (1979), “Scales for the measurement of some work attitudes

and aspects of psychological well-being”, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol.

52 No. 2, pp. 129–148.

Yuntao, D., Myeong-Gu, S. E. O. and Bartol, K. M. (2014), “No pain, no gain: An affect-

based model of development job experience and the buffering effects of emotional

intelligence”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 57, pp. 1056-1077.

Zammuner, V. L., Dionisio, D., Prandi, K. and Agnoli, S. (2013), “Assessing and training

leaders' emotional intelligence, and testing its influence on leaders' employees”,

Journal of Management & Change, Vol. 30/31, pp. 145-165.

Zeidner, M., Matthews, G., and Roberts, R. D. (2004), “Emotional intelligence in the

workplace: A critical review”, Applied Psychology - An International Review-

Psychologie Appliquee-Revue Internationale, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 371-399. 

29 
 
Table 1: Confirmatory factor analysis of stressors using structural equation modelling

Overload Management
Ambiguity Underload
Disagreement
Not knowing what's
happening in other .82
work areas
Lack of information on
why certain decisions .69
are made
Unclear expectations .86
Lack of contact with
workers from other .67
departments or sites
Not having enough .90
time to do job as well
as you would like
Busy, fast paced .82
workload
Insufficient staff to .78
complete work on time
and to standard
expected
Insufficient time to take .79
meal breaks
Unrealistic .75
performance targets
Having your work .75
closely monitored
Disagreements/conflict .84
with management
Disagreements/conflict .76.
with other employees
Supervisor constantly 81
finding fault in your
work
Unfair treatment from .83
more senior staff
Lack of advice and .73
guidance from more
senior staff
Lulls between work
.64
periods
Time to contemplate .73
Time to do work .64
Experience slowdown .66
Highest item SMC .74 .80 .71 .53
Lowest item SMC .45 .56 .54 .40
Note. SMC = squared multiple correlation.

30 
 
Table 2: Descriptive data for focal variables

Mean
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
(SD)
3.14
1. Overload (.90)
(1.12)
2.23
2. Man. Disagreement .55** (.90)
(1.06)
3.63
3. Underload .39** .06 (.76)
(0.79)
2.80
4. Ambiguity .32** .44** .03 (.84)
(0.89)
3.58
5. Emo. Intelligence -.07 -.16** .04 -.26** (.89)
(.66)
4.87
6. Satisfaction - Characteristics -.41** -.45** -.15* -.33** .07 (.87)
(1.06)
3.77
7. Satisfaction - Relations -.41** -.37** -.16** -.27** -.01 .70** (.86)
(1.29)
9.25
8. Psyc. Health -.12* -.10 -.08 .00 -.06 .14* .13* (.84)
(2.23)
Note. Cronbach’s (1951) alpha reliability coefficients appear in the diagonals.
Man. Disagreement = Management Disagreement; Emo. Intelligence = Emotional Intelligence.
Psych. Health = Psychological Health.

31 
 
Table 3: Hierarchical multiple regression analyses on retention outcomes

Job Satisfaction
Job Satisfaction Psychological
Independent Variables Characteristics
Relationalβ Healthβ
β
Step 1 – Control variables
Gender .01 .01 -.02

Adj R2 .00 -.00 -.00

Step 2 – Main effects
Overload -.20** -.28*** -.07
***
Man. Disagr. -.27 -.17* -.10
Underload -.05 -.04 -.05
Ambiguity -.15* -.13* .05
EI -.02 -.09 -.07
R2 Change .26*** .22*** .03
Step 3 – Two-way
interactions
Overload X EI .15* .31*** .02
†
Man. Disagr. X EI -.13 -.19* -.09
**
Underload X EI -.14 -.09† -.12*
Ambiguity X EI .02 -.01 -.12†
2 *
R Change .02 .05** .03†
Note. Man. Disagr. = Management Disagreement; EI = Emotional Intelligence.
†
p < .1; *p < .05; **p < .01;*** p < .001.

32 
 
Figure 1: Two-way interaction of overload with emotional intelligence on satisfaction

with job characteristics.

6.0

Low Emotional
5.5 Intelligence

HighEmotional
5.0
Satis. Job Characteristics

Intelligence

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0
Low High
Overload

33 
 
Figure 2. Two-way interaction of overload with emotional intelligence on satisfaction

with workplace relations.

6.0

5.5
Low Emotional
Intelligence
5.0

4.5 HighEmotional
Satis. Workplace Relations

Intelligence
4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0
Low High
Overload

34 
 
Figure 3: Two-way interaction of overload underload with emotional intelligence on

satisfaction with job characteristics.

6.0

Low Emotional
5.5 Intelligence

HighEmotional
5.0
Satis. Job Characteristics

Intelligence

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0
Low High
Underload

35 
 
Figure 4. Two-way interaction of management disagreement with emotional intelligence

on satisfaction with management disagreement.

5.0

4.5 Low Emotional

Intelligence

4.0
HighEmotional
Satis. Workplace Relations

Intelligence
3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0
Low High
Management Disagreement

36 
 
Figure 5: Two-way interaction of underload with emotional intelligence on well-being.

12.0

Low Emotional
11.0 Intelligence

10.0
HighEmotional
Psychological Well-being

Intelligence

9.0

8.0

7.0

6.0

5.0
Low High
Underload

37