How Managers’ Emotional Intelligence

Impacts Employees’ Satisfaction

and Commitment:
A Structural Equation Model
Kerry Webb*

The study explores the power of Structural Equation Model (SEM) to determine the
relationship between managers’ emotional intelligence and employee satisfaction and
commitment in the workplace. This investigation of managerial behavior utilizes SEM
to provide a visual portrayal of the relationship and impact on employee attitudes.
The study provides suggestions which may help managers and supervisors to
influence employees toward higher levels of satisfaction, commitment and
performance in the workforce.

Introduction
Organizations face many obstacles in sustaining worker performance. These challenges
include employee turnover, social loafing, poor performance, worker absenteeism and
worker malaise in general. Is the problem that the organization simply hires poor workers
or there might be some other factors in the work environment influencing workers toward
these negative outcomes? If there are other factors in play, how might the organization
determine their level of influence?
This line of inquiry leads inevitably to more questions, some of which concern the
impact of the manager. This study seeks to better understand to what degree a manager
or supervisor might influence workers toward higher levels of satisfaction and commitment
in the workplace. Specifically, the study seeks to discover what leader behaviors are most
beneficial toward achieving a more positive and productive work environment?
The list of antecedents to worker engagement include, in no particular order: (1) an
organizational environment where positive emotions such as pride and personal
involvement are encouraged (Robinson et al., 2004); (2) highly engaged managers (Soltis,
and Lanphear, 2004); (3) a supportive work environment that models concern for
employees’ needs and feelings, provides positive feedback, encourages employees to
communicate concerns, provides opportunities to develop new skills, and strives to solve

* Associate Professor, Texas Woman's University, School of Management, Denton, Texas, USA.
E-mail: kwebb@twu.edu

How Managers’
© 2014 Emotional
IUP. All Rights Intelligence Impacts Employees’ Satisfaction and Commitment:
Reserved. 7
A Structural Equation Model
work-related problems to enhance productivity (Deci and Ryan, 1987); (4) empowerment—
the ability of employees to make decisions that are important to their performance (Purcel
et al., 2003; and Lawler and Worley, 2006); and (5) organizations that nurture employee
perceptions of involvement and personal value, which leads to the types of discretionary
effort that produce higher performance (Konrad, 2006),
Some managers interact and engage with employees in ways that result in more
positive outcomes than what other managers are able to achieve. For some reason,
workers who are supervised by certain managers seem to display more positive attitudes
and put forth efforts that are better than average. What factors might we credit for these
results?
Two key elements which appear to correlate with increasing and sustaining employee
performance are the factors of worker satisfaction and commitment (Cammann et al.,
1979; Glisson and Durick, 1988; Montana and Charnov, 1993; and Koys, 2001).
In the study, the Structural Equation Model (SEM) is utilized to understand the
correlation between leader behaviors and worker outcomes of satisfaction and
commitment. It is important for managers to better understand the role of emotional
intelligence in the workplace.
There are certain behaviors and attitudes on the part of the leader that appear to be
critical factors in creating high levels of employee satisfaction and commitment. Likewise,
when these factors are absent, the opposite outcomes tend to occur. Managers and
supervisors can significantly influence the outcomes from their workers by utilizing four
subsets of behaviors from the field of emotional intelligence.
In order to achieve positive levels of employee satisfaction and commitment, managers
and supervisors must understand the powerful link between certain emotional intelligence
attributes and workplace outcomes. By focusing on particular behaviors, it appears that
leaders can be more effective in helping strengthen worker satisfaction and commitment.
By implementing the right behaviors, it seems that supervisors and managers may
significantly increase their odds of creating a work environment, in which employees are
more engaged, put forth their best efforts and achieve improved results. Smart leaders
realize the tremendous benefit that a committed, productive workplace of satisfied co-
workers provides toward the organizational goal of sustained profitability and/or viability
(Buckingham and Coffman, 1999).

Objectives
This study builds on prior research in the field of emotional intelligence by exploring the
correlation between four categories of emotional intelligence factors and the independent
outcomes of co-worker satisfaction and commitment. Prior studies indicate that emotional
intelligent behaviors demonstrate a positive correlation with socially desirable behavior
and a negative correlation with undesirable behavior (Petrides and Furnham, 2006). If this

8 The IUP Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. XIII, No. 2, 2014

is so, how could a manager adapt his or her behaviors to better influence and motivate
employees toward increased levels of satisfaction and commitment?
One objective of this study is to explain the significant positive correlation between
a leader’s emotional intelligence and levels of worker satisfaction and commitment in
organizations. A second objective of the study is to utilize SEM to create a model or
set of models which aids in understanding the manner in which these factors interact
to achieve worker satisfaction and commitment. The overarching goal is to better
understand the process by which a leader displays emotionally intelligent behaviors in
the workplace which have a positive correlation with co-worker satisfaction and
commitment.
If a manager or supervisor can better understand how certain behaviors can influence
or stimulate desirable outcomes, it might be possible for a manager to alter his
interactions and/or behaviors in an effort to obtain the results that are preferred by the
manager and the organization. In addition, an informed business or organization could
be equipped to make better decisions when promoting and hiring the types of managers
who already value and model these behaviors to a considerable degree.
The study evolved from an effort to explore the following questions:
1. What emotional intelligence factors are most commonly demonstrated by
leaders in various industries?
2. What emotional intelligence factors are most predictive of positive worker
satisfaction with their supervisor?
3. What emotional intelligence factors are most predictive of positive worker
satisfaction with their organization?
4. What emotional intelligence factors are most predictive of positive worker
commitment to their supervisor?
5. What emotional intelligence factors are most predictive of positive worker
commitment to the organization?
6. In what way, do emotional intelligence attributes that are significant predictors
of worker satisfaction and commitment to the leader and the organization
interact to influence the desired outcomes?

Data and Methodology

Petrides and Furnham (2001) divides emotional intelligence into four categories and adds
a category of general emotional intelligence, which are measured by the Trait Emotional
Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue–SF) (Table 1):
• Sociability – Assertiveness, emotional management and social competence are
the key facets of sociability.

How Managers’ Emotional Intelligence Impacts Employees’ Satisfaction and Commitment: 9

A Structural Equation Model
 • Emotionality – Relationship skills, emotional expression, empathy and
emotional perception are the primary facets of emotionality.

• Self-control – Low impulsiveness, stress management and emotional regulation

are the facets of self-control.

• Wellbeing – Self-esteem, happiness and optimism are the facets utilized to

measure the attribute of wellbeing.

• General emotional intelligence – Petrides and Furnham (2001) includes two

additional facets (adaptability and self-motivation) which represent the general
level of emotional intelligence.

Table 1: Factors Utilized to Measure Emotional Intelligence

Emotional Intelligence Factors and Facets
General Emotional Intelligence (Two Facets) High Scorers are Perceived as…
Adaptability Flexible and willing to adapt to new conditions.
Self-Motivation Driven and unlikely to give up in the face of
adversity.
Sociability
Assertiveness Forthright, frank and willing to stand up for their
rights.
Emotional Management of Others Capable of influencing other people’s feelings.
Social Competence Accomplished networkers with superior social
skills.
Emotionality
Emotional Expression Capable of communicating their feelings to others.
Relationship Skills Capable of maintaining fulfilling personal
relationships.
Empathy Capable of taking someone else’s perspective.
Emotional Perception Clear about their own and others people’s
(self and others) feelings.
Self-Control
Impulsiveness Reflective and less likely to give in to their urges.
Stress Management Capable of withstanding pressure and regulating
stress.
Emotion Regulation Capable of controlling their emotions.
Wellbeing
Self-esteem Successful and self-confident.
Happiness Cheerful and satisfied with their lives.
Optimism Confident and tend to ‘look on the bright side’ of life.

10 The IUP Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. XIII, No. 2, 2014

 Petrides and Furnham (2006) prefer to describe these emotional intelligence attributes
as ‘trait EI’, which creates conflicting perceptions regarding the meaning of ‘trait’. In this
study, emotional intelligence factors will be referred to as attributes, behaviors, or
practices as they are measured by observing leaders’ behavior which can be learned,
changed, or moderated by individuals who are motivated to do so.
The TEIque-SF survey instrument (Petrides and Furnham, 2006) is utilized to measure
the behavior of business managers and to identify the attributes of emotional intelligence
which are most commonly observed in the workplace. These results are subjected to
ANOVA, linear regression and SEM to determine the impact of these behaviors on worker
satisfaction and worker commitment toward the leader and the organization.
Worker satisfaction is measured in terms of satisfaction with the leader and
satisfaction with the organization. Likewise, worker commitment is measured in terms
of commitment to the leader and the organization. Satisfaction with the leader and
satisfaction with the organization are measured using items from the Michigan
Organizational Assessment Questionnaire and the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire
(MSQ). Commitment to the leader and commitment to the organization are measured
using items from Meyer and Allen’s Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (1991).
TEIQue-SF is utilized to understand and measure the correlations between the leader’s
emotional intelligence and employee outcomes (Petrides and Furnham, 2000). The
TEIque-SF instrument (Petrides and Furnham, 2006) is utilized to understand how the
significant factors (if any exist) interact in ways that enhance employee satisfaction and
commitment.

Sample
Over 600 surveys were distributed. A total of 284 surveys were completed and tabulated
and 35 surveys were determined to be unusable because of incomplete responses for
all fields. The 249 remaining surveys were initially analyzed using linear regression
modeling to identify significant correlation between leaders’ emotional intelligence and
the levels of worker satisfaction and commitment. Then SEM was applied to better
understand the relationship between the various factors.

Results and Discussion

249 respondents were full-time employees with job experience across multiple industries.
They were also participants in an EMBA degree program. Workers in their 30s represent
the largest age group in the study (Figure 1). The age groups in the sample are as follows:
15% were 20-29 (n = 38), the smallest age group in the study; 38% were 30-39 years
old (n = 94) the largest age group in the study; 27% were 40-49 years old (n = 66);
and 19% were 50 years old and above (n = 47).
The gender ratio for the sample group was 82% women (n = 204) and 18% men
(n = 45). This unique sample is the result of conducting the study using EMBA students

How Managers’ Emotional Intelligence Impacts Employees’ Satisfaction and Commitment: 11

A Structural Equation Model
 Figure 1: Workers by Age Group

20-29 15%

30-39 38%

40-49 27%

50 years+ 19%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

from a university emerging from a women-only heritage. It may be insightful to compare

the results of a similar study conducted with full-time employees engaged in MBA studies
at other institutions with a more balanced demographic profile in future efforts to further
validate this study.

The racial and ethnic composition of the study group was diverse (Figure 2) and
consists of 49% Caucasians (n = 121), 30% African Americans (n = 74), 9% Hispanics
(n = 21), 9% Asians (n = 21) and 3% others (n = 7).

Respondents’ employment was dispersed across several industries: 40% healthcare/

medical (n = 100), 13% education (n = 31), 7% government (n = 17), 7% banking
(n = 16), 6% marketing (n = 15), 4% administrative (n = 9), 3% computers/IT (n = 8), 3%
manufacturing (n = 8), 3% oil and gas (n = 7) and 14% others (n = 36). The study participants
were selected for their knowledge, expertise and convenience as a sample group.

Research question #1: To what degree are the emotional intelligence attributes
utilized by leaders in various industries?

Mean scores were calculated for the frequency with which leaders demonstrate the various
behaviors that correlate with the independent variables for emotional intelligence (Figure 3).
The results show that the construct of wellbeing (5.44 on a 7-point scale) was the most
frequently represented by leaders in the various industries represented in this study.

12 The IUP Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. XIII, No. 2, 2014

 Figure 2: Racial and Ethnic Composition of Sample

Caucasians 15% 49%

African
30%
Americans

Hispanics 9%

Asians 9%

Others 3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Figure 3: Frequency of Leaders’ Emotional Intelligence Behaviors

7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Wellbeing Sociability Emotionality Self-Control

The second most observed leader behavior is represented by the construct of

sociability (5.10 on a 7-point scale), which is represented by the degree of assertiveness,
emotional management and social competence shown by the leader (Petrides and
Furnham, 2001).

The constructs of emotionality (mean = 4.57) and self-control (mean = 4.50) were
demonstrated to a lesser degree than leader behaviors related to wellbeing or sociability.

How Managers’ Emotional Intelligence Impacts Employees’ Satisfaction and Commitment: 13

A Structural Equation Model
The construct of emotionality consists of the facets of emotional expression, relationship
skills, empathy and emotional perception, and the construct of self-control is a measure
of impulsiveness, stress management, and emotional regulation.

The reported leader behaviors related with the constructs of emotionality and self-
control were observed to be relatively equal in degree of frequency, as observed by
workers. Both constructs of emotional intelligence were practiced considerably less often
by leaders than the constructs of wellbeing or sociability.

The frequency of leaders’ behaviors based on responses on the TEIque-SF was

essentially the same regardless of gender, age, industry, or type of employment.

Research question #2: What emotional intelligence attributes are significant

predictors of worker satisfaction with the leader?

The results of ANOVA and linear regression analysis demonstrate that a combined
four-factor regression model, including sociability, self-control, wellbeing and emotionality,
was about as predictive of followers’ commitment to the leader (adjusted R2 = 0.705) as
a five-factor model which also included global emotional intelligence (adjusted R2 = 0.717).
The four-factor model was selected for use in this study since global emotional intelligence
appears to be highly correlated with each of the four other constructs of emotional
intelligence.

The two variables in the four-factor model which demonstrated a positive significant
correlation with worker satisfaction with the leader (p < 0.001) were emotionality
(B = 0.758) and sociability (B = 0.361) (Table 2 and Figure 4). Emotionality displayed
the strongest correlation with worker satisfaction with the leader, although sociability
displayed a moderate correlation.

Table 2: ANOVA Results: Worker Satisfaction with Leader

Unstandardized
Beta t p
B SE
Wellbeing 0.031 0.093 0.017 0.337 0.736
Self-Control 0.192 0.079 0.140 2.445 0.015
Emotionality* 0.758 0.083 0.550 9.160 0.000
Sociability* 0.361 0.075 0.222 4.804 0.000
Note: F (2, 244) = 127.28; * p < 0.001; and R = 0.671.
2

Research question #3: What emotional intelligence attributes are significant

predictors of worker satisfaction with the organization?
Only one of the variables in the four-factor model demonstrated a positive significant
correlation with worker satisfaction with the leader (p < 0.001). Sociability (B = 0.347)

14 The IUP Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. XIII, No. 2, 2014

 Figure 4: Correlations: Satisfaction with Leader

Sociability*

Emotionality*

Self-Control

Wellbeing

0 0.2 0.4 0.6

Note: * = Statistically significant.

displayed a moderate positive correlation with satisfaction with the organization at

approximately the same strength as with satisfaction with the leader (Table 3 and
Figure 5).

Table 3: ANOVA Results: Worker Satisfaction with Organization

Unstandardized
Beta t p
B SE
Wellbeing 0.185 0.130 0.106 1.030 0.304
Self-Control 0.318 0.110 0.247 2.900 0.157
Emotionality 0.068 0.116 0.052 0.588 0.557
Sociability* 0.347 0.105 0.227 3.308 0.001
Note: F (2, 244) = 24.16; * p < 0.001; and R = 0.272.
2

Research question #4: What emotional intelligence attributes are significant

predictors of worker commitment to the leader?
Three variables in the four-factor model demonstrated a positive significant correlation
with worker commitment to the leader.
The strongest correlating factor between emotional intelligence factors and
commitment to the leader was emotionality (B = 0.708). While self-control (B = 0.255),

How Managers’ Emotional Intelligence Impacts Employees’ Satisfaction and Commitment: 15

A Structural Equation Model
 Figure 5: Correlations: Satisfaction with the Organization

Sociability*

Emotionality*

Self-Control

Wellbeing

0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30

Note: * = Statistically significant.

and sociability (B = 0.212) had significant positive correlations with commitment to the
leader, neither of these factors was close to the degree of correlation as emotionality.
Emotionality displayed a moderate positive correlation with worker commitment to the
leader as a single variable. However, the combined effect of the three variables of
emotionality, self-control and sociability produced a very strong positive correlation,
accounting for more than 70% of the total level of worker commitment to the leader
(adjusted R2 = 0.705).

Table 4: ANOVA Results: Worker Commitment to Leader

Unstandardized
Beta t p
B SE
Wellbeing 0.157 0.085 0.088 1.855 0.065
Self-Control* 0.255 0.071 0.193 3.565 0.000
Emotionality* 0.708 0.075 0.536 9.426 0.000
Sociability* 0.212 0.068 0.136 3.103 0.002
Note: F (2, 244) = 149.12; * p < 0.001; and R = 0.705.
2

The variable of wellbeing was not a significant factor as a predictor of worker commitment
to the leader. Although the construct of emotionality was by far the strongest predictor of
employee commitment to the leader, the behaviors and attitudes represented by
emotionality were among the least utilized behaviors by managers represented in this study.
Research question #5: What emotional intelligence attributes are significant
predictors of worker commitment to the organization?

16 The IUP Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. XIII, No. 2, 2014

 Figure 6: Correlations: Commitment to the Leader

Sociability*

Emotionality

Self-Control

Wellbeing

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

Note: * = Statistically significant.

Two variables in the four-factor model demonstrated positive and significant correlations
with worker commitment to the organization: self-control (B = 0.155), and sociability
(B = 0.166). Both factors demonstrated a moderate-to-low positive correlation with worker
commitment to the organization (Table 5 and Figure 7).

Table 5: ANOVA Results: Worker Commitment to Organization

Unstandardized
Beta t p
B SE
Wellbeing 0.067 0.065 0.081 1.028 0.305
Self-Control* 0.155 0.055 0.255 2.837 0.005
Emotionality –0.021 0.058 –0.035 –0.372 0.710
Sociability* 0.166 0.052 0.229 3.173 0.002
Note: F (2, 244) = 15.80; * p < 0.01; R2 = 0.193.

The combined effect of both variables (self-control and sociability) account for almost
20% of the total level of worker commitment to the organization (adjusted R2 = 0.193).
The factors of emotionality and wellbeing were shown not to be significant predictors
of worker commitment to the organization. However, the leader trait of emotionality
demonstrated a negative relationship with commitment to the organization.
The results of the linear regression indicate that the leader’s emotional intelligence
has more influence on worker commitment to the leader than on worker commitment to
the organization.

How Managers’ Emotional Intelligence Impacts Employees’ Satisfaction and Commitment: 17

A Structural Equation Model
 Figure 7: Correlations: Commitment to the Organization

Sociability*

Emotio-
nality

Self-Control

Wellbeing

–0.05 0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30

Note: * = Statistically significant.

It is likely that many factors influence worker commitment to the organization, and
the leader’s emotional intelligence is merely one of these factors. The data show that
leaders may be using the wrong behaviors to create and sustain worker commitment to
the leader and to the organization.
While these results are interesting to note, they fail to provide an adequate
understanding of how the four emotional intelligence factors influence the outcomes of
worker satisfaction with the leader and organization and worker commitment to the leader
and organization.
Research question #6: In what way do emotional intelligence attributes that are
significant predictors of worker satisfaction with and commitment to the leader and
to the organization interact to influence the desired outcomes?
SEM was then utilized to better understand this relationship. Sun (2005) recommended
that when a CFA is being used to validate the factor structure of a measurement model,
the following fit indices should be interpreted: Standardized Root Mean Square Residual
(SRMR), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), which is the equivalent to the Non-Normed Fit Index
(NNFI), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Comparative Fit Index
(CFI). All these suggested fit indices are produced by the LISREL 8.8 software. These
fit indices are also recommended to be used, because they have agreed upon cut-off
values (Sun, 2005).
According to Hu and Bentler (1999), the maximum cut-off values for the SRMR and
RMSEA are 0.08 and 0.06 respectively, and that the minimum cut off value for the NNFI
and the CFI are 0.95 in order to conclude a good fit between the model and the data.

18 The IUP Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. XIII, No. 2, 2014

The overall measurement model had adequate fit with the obtained data (adjusted
² = 2.25, SRMR = 0.067, RMSEA = 0.071, NNFI = 0.966 and CFI = 0.966).
In addition to fit indices, SEM provides path coefficients which note the direct strength
of the relationship between each individual item to the latent construct. Path coefficients
can be interpreted as follows: ~0.10 as a small effect, ~0.30 as a moderate effect
and ~0.50 as a large effect (Cohen, 1988).
As shown in Figure 8, workers’ perception of their leaders emotionality and sociability
were associated with increased employee satisfaction with the leader (0.62 and 0.54
respectively). Worker satisfaction with the leader had a direct positive effect on both worker
commitment to leader (0.90) as well as worker satisfaction with the organization (0.43).
Worker commitment to the leader was positively associated with worker commitment to
the organization (0.49).

Figure 8: SEM – Worker Satisfaction

Commitment
Wellbeing to Organization

–0.11

0.08 0.49*
Self-Control

–0.11
Leader 0.90* Commitment
Satisfaction to Leader
0.62*
Emotionality

0.25
0.54* 0.43*

Sociability Organization
Satisfaction

Overall, these findings indicate that worker satisfaction with the leader appears to be
accounting for positive increase in both organization satisfaction and (through commitment
to the leader) commitment to the organization.
Additionally, there was a positive association between organization satisfaction and
commitment to organization (0.75). While emotionality was positively related to worker

How Managers’ Emotional Intelligence Impacts Employees’ Satisfaction and Commitment: 19

A Structural Equation Model
 Figure 9: SEM – Worker Commitment

Commitment
Wellbeing to Organization

–0.11
0.49*
Self-Control
–0.11 0.75
Leader 0.90* Commitment
Satisfaction to Leader
0.62*
Emotionality 0.51*

0.25
0.54*

Sociability Organization
Satisfaction

Note: * = Statistically significant.

Figure 10: SEM – Worker Satisfaction and Commitment

Commitment
Wellbeing to Organization

–0.11

0.08 0.49*
Self-Control
–0.11 0.75
Leader 0.90* Commitment
Satisfaction to Leader
0.62*
Emotionality 0.51*

0.25
0.54* 0.43*

Sociability Organization
Satisfaction

Note: * = Statistically significant.

20 The IUP Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. XIII, No. 2, 2014

commitment to the leader (0.51), none of the remaining three factors was significantly
associated with worker commitment to the leader (Figure 9).

Studies of companies with higher engagement levels report lower employee turnover,
higher productivity and better financial performance (Baumruk, 2006). In a global workforce
study, Towers (2007) found that businesses with the highest levels of employee
engagement increased their operating income by as much as 19% and their earnings
per share by 28% year to year.
Finally, the paths from perceived wellbeing and self-control did not significantly relate
to worker satisfaction with the leader or worker commitment to the leader. The complete
SEM model is illustrated in Figure 10. The model provides a simplified view of the
correlations between the emotional intelligence factors of the leader (dependent variables)
and the outcomes of worker satisfaction and commitment (independent variables), as well
as the interactions between the independent variables.

Conclusion
According to worker perceptions, managers utilize behaviors related to sociability and
wellbeing with a high degree of frequency in the workplace. Unfortunately, wellbeing does
not correlate with worker satisfaction or commitment to the leader or to the organization.
This indicates that while managers’ behaviors may be self-serving, in the long run, they
do not support the managers’ goal of achieving higher worker performance.

The behaviors that were most strongly related to worker satisfaction with the leader,
according to the linear regression, were emotionality (B = 0.758) and sociability
(B = 0.361). The SEM confirmed this correlation and provided additional insight related
to the manner in which the various factors interrelate to impact worker satisfaction with
the organization and commitment to the leader and commitment to the organization.
One of the most interesting findings from the SEM was the strong correlation between
worker satisfaction (0.90) with the leader and commitment to the leader. To a moderate
degree, satisfaction with the leader appears to correlate to satisfaction with the
organization (0.43), but not commitment to the organization (0.08). However, commitment
to the leader more strongly influences commitment to the organization (0.49) than
satisfaction with the organization (0.25). Upon contemplation, some of these findings
seem to fit well with a colloquial saying that goes like this: “Most employees do not leave
their organization, most employees leave their manager.” This simplistic view of employee
satisfaction and commitment may be more true than not.
One of the benefits of the SEM is that it helps us understand these relationships more
clearly. The lack of satisfaction or commitment to an organization appears to relate
moderately to a lack of commitment to the leader. However, the lack of satisfaction with
an organization relates very strongly to a lack of satisfaction with the leader (0.90).

How Managers’ Emotional Intelligence Impacts Employees’ Satisfaction and Commitment: 21

A Structural Equation Model
 To those managers who intend to sustain a workforce of employees who are satisfied
and committed, this study may provide valuable insights to assist in developing a business
strategy to achieve these results. The findings of the regression and the SEM in this
study offer priceless nuggets of insight that may pay off nicely for organizational leaders
who are willing to give thoughtful consideration and careful application to these results.

Implications
Due to the large sample size, the findings of this study are generalizable to managers
and leaders across many fields of industry. In addition, the sample included a wide array
of participants in the age group of 20s to 60s. Representation from all major ethic groups
is another factor of the sample which strengthens the case for wide generalizability. One
of the limitations of the study is the disproportionate number of female participants in
the sample. It would strengthen the findings if the study were expanded to include more
males.
It appears that leaders may be utilizing behaviors that are counterproductive to achieving
their organizational goals. Hiring managers who practice self-control and self-confidence
is inadequate as an approach to creating worker satisfaction and commitment. Due to their
failure to influence worker satisfaction and commitment, the performance of their
organization is likely to fall below expectations and workplace challenges are likely to
expand.
However, if leaders are willing to practice more emotional intelligent behaviors that
relate to emotionality and sociability, they may increase the likelihood of creating a
workforce of satisfied and more committed workers. SEM seems to indicate the
importance of training managers in how to relate to workers as well as how to organize
and plan the work. By promoting and creating positive emotional bonds with co-workers,
managers and leaders have less probability of negative outcomes on the part of their
workforce. By utilizing emotionality and sociability, leaders and managers may find that
they can accelerate the process of attaining company goals and thus enhance their own
career advancement at the same time.
Suggestions for Future Research: This paper has implications for future research. It
is suggested that it would be beneficial to expand the study to include more male
participants. A replication study is also suggested to create even more robust results
and greater confidence in these findings.
Further, the study might include the perceptions of managers regarding their own
behaviors and the behaviors of their colleagues. In addition, it may be helpful to identify
additional behavioral factors which correlate with organizational satisfaction.
This study indicates that increasing the satisfaction with the leader and the
organization is one of the most powerful ways for increasing commitment to the leader
and the organization. Therefore, the more one understands the factors which increase

22 The IUP Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. XIII, No. 2, 2014

the satisfaction with the leader as well as the organization, the better the opportunity
one has to discover potential ways to increase worker commitment which seems to lead
to sustained worker performance. This study contributes to the overall understanding of
practices for creating a sustainable and high performing workforce. 

References
1. Baumruk R (2006), “Why Managers are Crucial to Increasing Engagement”, Strategic
HR Review, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 24-27.

2. Buckingham M and Coffman C (1999), “First Break all the Rules: What the World’s
Great Managers do Differently”, Simon & Schuster, NY.

3. Cammann C, Fichman M, Jenkins D and Klesh J (1979), “The Michigan

Organizational Assessment Questionnaire”, Unpublished manuscript, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor.

4. Cohen J (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Second
Edition, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Hillsdale, NJ.

5. Deci E L and Ryan R M (1987), “The Support of Autonomy and the Control of
Behavior”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 53, pp. 1024-1037.

6. Glisson C and Durick M (1988), “Predictors of Job Satisfaction and Organizational

Commitment in Human Service Organizations”, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 33, No. 1, March 1988, pp. 61-81

7. Hu L and Bentler P M (1999), “Cut off Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structural
Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives”, Structural Equation
Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 6, pp. 1-55.

8. Konrad A M (2006), “Engaging Employees Through High-Involvement Work

Practices”, Ivey Business Journal, March-April, pp. 1-6.

9. Koys D (2001), “The Effects of Employee Satisfaction, Organizational Citizenship

Behavior, and Turnover on Organizational Effectiveness: A Unit-level, Longitudinal
Study”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 54, No. 1, pp. 101-114.

10. Lawler E and Worley C G (2006), “Winning Support for Organizational Change:
Designing Employee Reward Systems That Keep on Working”, Ivey Business
Journal, March-April.

11. Montana P J and Charnov B H (1993), Management, Hauppauge, Barron’s

Educational Series, Inc, NY.

12. Petrides K V and Furnham A (2000), “On the Dimensional Structure of Emotional
Intelligence”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 29, pp. 313-320.

How Managers’ Emotional Intelligence Impacts Employees’ Satisfaction and Commitment: 23

A Structural Equation Model
13. Petrides K V and Furnham A (2001), “Trait Emotional Intelligence: Psychometric
Investigation with Reference to Established Trait Taxonomies”, European Journal of
Personality, Vol. 15, pp. 425-448.
14. 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.
15. Purcel J, Kinnie N, Hutchinson S, et. al (2003), Understanding the People and
Performance: Reflections on Employee Engagement, CIPD, London.
16. Robinson D, Perryman S and Hayday S (2004), “The Drivers of Employee
Engagement”, Institute for Employment Studies.
17. Soltis B and Lanphear S (2004), “Are Your Employees Highly Engaged?”, Credit
Union Executive Newsletter, Vol. 19, pp. 1-2.
18. Sun J (2005), “Assessing Goodness of Fit in Confirmatory Factor Analysis”,
Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, Vol. 37, pp. 240-256.
19. Towers Perrin Talent Report (2007), “Largest Ever Study of Global Workforce Finds
Senior Management Holds Trigger to Unleash Talent Potential”. Retrieved from http:/
/www.towersperrin.com/tp/showdctmdoc.jsp?url=HR_Services/Canada/English/
Press_Releases/2007/20071022/2007_10_22.htm&country=global

Reference # 06J-2014-04-01-01

24 The IUP Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. XIII, No. 2, 2014

Copyright of IUP Journal of Organizational Behavior is the property of IUP Publications and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.