The Unique and Common Effects of Emotional Intelli

The International Journal of Human Resource
Management
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rijh20
The unique and common effects of emotional

intelligence dimensions on job satisfaction and
facets of job performance: an exploratory study in
three countries
Christopher Schlaegel , Robert L. Engle & Guido Lang
To cite this article: Christopher Schlaegel , Robert L. Engle & Guido Lang (2020): The unique
and common effects of emotional intelligence dimensions on job satisfaction and facets of job
performance: an exploratory study in three countries, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, DOI: 10.1080/09585192.2020.1811368
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2020.1811368
© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group
Published online: 02 Sep 2020.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 86
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rijh20
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2020.1811368
The unique and common effects of emotional

intelligence dimensions on job satisfaction and facets
of job performance: an exploratory study in
three countries
Christopher Schlaegela, Robert L. Engleb and Guido Langc
a
Faculty of Economics and Management Department of Global Economics and Management,
University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands; bDepartment of Entrepreneurship,
International Business, & Strategy, School of Business, Quinnipiac University, Hamden, CT,
USA; cDepartment of Entrepreneurship, Computer Information Systems, School of Business,
Quinnipiac University, Hamden, CT, USA
ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Previous empirical studies have either used a unidimensional Emotional intelligence;
or a multidimensional analytical approach to examine the con- commonality analysis; job
sequences of emotional intelligence (EI). In this exploratory performance; job
satisfaction
study we integrate and extend these two approaches, using a
novel perspective to better understand the structure of the EI-
job satisfaction and the EI-job performance relationship. Using
commonality analysis and data from Germany, India, as well as
the U.S. we partition the explained variance for job satisfaction,
in- role performance, and extra-role performance into the vari-
ance that is uniquely explained by the individual EI dimensions
and the variance that is common to sets of EI dimensions. We
provide evidence that the EI dimensions are differently related
to job satisfaction and job performance facets. Furthermore,
the findings offer insights on how unique and common effects
vary across countries. Partitioning the unique and commonly
shared variance allows us to assess the true predictive power
of individual EI dimensions and of sets of EI dimensions. Based
on these findings, we discuss implications for theory develop-
ment and provide future research directions.
Introduction
Emotional intelligence (EI)—an individual’s capacity to accurately and
efficiently process emotional information relevant to the recognition,
construction, and regulation of emotion in oneself and others (Mayer &
CONTACT Christopher Schlaegel c.schlagel@rug.nl Faculty of Economics and Management

Department of Global Economics and Management, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
ß 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-
NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed,
or built upon in any way.
2 C. SCHLAEGE ET AL.
Salovey, 1995, p. 197)—has been controversially discussed in the litera-

ture (e.g. Ashkanasy & Daus, 2005; Cherniss, 2010; Jordan et al., 2003).
While metaanalytic evidence suggests that EI has incremental predictive
validity in predicting employees attitudes and behaviors over and above
established predictors, such as personality traits and general mental abil-
ity (Joseph & Newman, 2010; Joseph et al., 2015; Miao et al., 2017;
O’Boyle et al., 2011; Van Rooy & Viswesvaran, 2004), the variety of EI
conceptualizations, measures, and operationalization caused an ongoing
debate about the validity of EI (e.g. Conte, 2005; Harms & Crede, 2010).
Salovey and Mayer (1990) conceptualized EI as a multidimensional con-
struct. While not all measures followed this specific conceptualization,
the majority of EI measures have in common that they consider EI to be
multidimensional (Matthews et al., 2007). Despite the general agreement
on the multidimensional nature of EI, in the literature two diverging
empirical approaches to statistically assess the influence of EI on various
outcomes have emerged. In the first approach a unidimensional opera-
tionalization is used to statistically test the influence of overall EI on dif-
ferent outcomes (see, e.g. Law et al., 2004). This approach emphasizes
the common effect of the EI dimensions and, thus, their shared variance
explained in an outcome. The second approach is a multidimensional
operationalization and the test of the association between the individual
EI dimensions and an outcome (Law et al., 2008). In this empirical
approach EI exists as a set of individual dimensions, with each EI dimen-
sion explaining unique variance in the outcome variable.
Both empirical approaches have contributed to important theoretical
advances and practical insights. However, both approaches also have
their limitations. Using a unidimensional empirical approach, and thus
focusing on overall EI, limits the analysis of EI’s contribution to the
common variance among the EI dimensions in explaining variation in a
specific outcome. Empirical studies based on this approach are unable to
uncover effects resulting from only a single EI dimension. The majority
of previous studies only report their findings for overall EI. This may
result in a misleading interpretation of findings, as EI dimensions may
not necessarily have the same effects as the overall EI construct, depend-
ing on the specific outcome examined and the study context. Empirical
studies that use the multidimensional approach typically focus on the
analysis of EI’s contribution to the explanation of variations in outcomes
based on unique variations in each of the four EI dimensions. The statis-
tical approaches that are typically used to examine the relationships
between EI dimensions and an outcome (i.e. hierarchical regression ana-
lysis and structural equation modeling) fail to address potential multicol-
linearity between independent variables (e.g. Grewal et al., 2004; Kalnins,
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 3
2018). Given the complex interrelations and correlations between EI

dimensions and, therewith, the degree of potential multicollinearity
among EI dimensions, the standard statistical approaches may result in
wider confidence intervals and wrong signs of the estimates, which may
complicate and mislead researchers’ interpretation of findings (Nimon &
Reio, 2011). Commonality analysis (Mood, 1969; Seibold & McPhee,
1979) provides an approach to decompose the explained variance in a
particular outcome into the non-overlapping parts accounted for by the
independent variables and explicitly addresses multicollinearity. Thus,
commonality analysis provides separate measures of unique variance
explained for each individual EI dimension in addition to measures of
shared variance for all combinations of EI dimensions (Kraha
et al., 2012).
Drawing on a mutualism perspective towards general intelligence (Van
Der Maas et al., 2006), we argue that the EI dimensions are both individ-
ual abilities that complete each other as well as mutually interrelated
abilities that reinforce each other, creating synergistic blends of two or
more EI dimensions. Based on this line of thinking we posit that the uni-
dimensional and the multidimensional approach can benefit from, and
contribute to, one another by integrating them in a third approach. This
third approach integrates and extends the two standard empirical
approaches by assessing so far unexplored joint effects of sets of two or
three EI dimensions.
The present study makes three contributions. First, following recent
calls to use a mutualism perspective in the work environment (Schneider
& Newman, 2015), we explore whether, and to what extent, individual
and shared effects of EI dimensions explain variance in job satisfaction,
in-role performance, and extra-role performance. Based on commonality
analysis, our results reveal the specific individual EI dimension as well as
sets of two, three, and all four EI dimensions that account for variance
in the three outcomes. These findings provide a more detailed under-
standing of how EI is related to three key outcomes in the workplace,
enabling researchers to develop more precise theoretical predictions,
which better describe the nature of the relation.
As a second contribution, we compare the individual and shared
effects of EI dimensions across job satisfaction, in-role performance, and
extra-role performance. We respond to calls to identify key EI dimen-
sions for specific outcomes and calls for studies that compare the effect
of EI dimensions across different outcomes (e.g. Cherniss, 2010;
Matthews et al., 2007). Our results reveal similarities and differences in
the key individual EI dimensions and sets of EI dimensions across out-
comes, providing a more complete understanding of how EI is associated
with different outcomes, enabling researchers to develop more accurate

theoretical models.
The third contribution of the present study is a more fine-grained
characterization of the differentiated outcome effects of individual EI
dimensions and sets of EI dimensions in distinct national contexts.
Despite the high number of studies examining various outcomes of EI,
we still have a limited understanding of the similarities and differences
of the direction and strength of the association between EI and various
work-related attitudes and behaviors in different countries. Following
recent calls to move beyond single country studies (e.g. Gunkel et al.,
2016; Ybarra et al., 2014), we explore whether the structure of individual
and shared effects of EI dimensions vary across samples from Germany,
India, and the U.S.—three countries that substantially differ in their cul-
tural background. Our results show that while the key individual EI
dimensions and sets of EI dimensions are the same across the three sam-
ples, the relative importance of the individual and shared effect vary sub-
stantially across samples. These findings provide researchers a basis to
develop a more nuanced and context-sensitive perspective towards EI in
the workplace.
Background and exploratory research questions

Literature review
While various measures of EI have been proposed in the literature (for
an overview see, e.g. Perez et al., 2005), the present study focuses on the
Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale (WLEIS). Based on the def-
inition and conceptualization of EI proposed by Mayer and Salovey
(1995), Wong and Law (2002) developed a short measure of EI specific-
ally for research in the organizational context. According to Wong and
Law (2002, p. 246) EI consists of four dimensions: Self-emotional
appraisal (SEA), others’ emotional appraisal (OEA), regulation of emo-
tion (ROE), and use of emotion (UOE). SEA refers to individuals’ ability
to understand and express their emotions. OEA refers to individuals’
ability to perceive and understand the emotions of individuals around
them. ROE refers to individuals’ ability to regulate their emotions, which
facilitates their rapid and successful recovery after psychological distress.
Use of emotion (UOE) refers to individuals’ abil-ity to utilize and direct
their emotions towards constructive activities and personal performance.
While the conceptualization of EI has been extensively discussed in
the literature in the last two decades, the literature has been rather silent
on the question whether EI is most appropriately empirically assessed as
a unidimensional or as a multidimensional construct. Given the
dominance of studies that used a unidimensional empirical approach

towards EI, recent studies stressed the importance of the multidimen-
sional nature of EI and the differentiated relations between EI dimen-
sions and various outcomes (e.g. Bozionelos & Singh, 2017; Greenidge
et al., 2014). While prior research examined various outcomes of EI, in
the present study we focus on aspects of job performance and job satis-
faction as these are the most researched and theoretically described con-
sequences of EI in this literature stream (Joseph & Newman, 2010;
Joseph et al., 2015; Miao et al., 2017; O’Boyle et al., 2011; Van Rooy &
Viswesvaran, 2004). Moreover, given the research objectives of this study
in the following literature review, we focus on studies that have exam-
ined the association between the individual EI dimension and the three
dependent variables based on the WLEIS. Table 1 presents a summary of
the identified studies.
EI dimensions and job performance

While in the literature various dimensions and measures of job perform-
ance are utilized, an approach used in a large number of studies is the
‘in-role’ and ‘extra-role’ classification by Katz and Kahn (1966). They see
in-role performance as well-defined (task oriented) roles and activities
that might typically be seen in formal job descriptions, and extra-role
performance as those roles and activities that are not specifically pre-
scribed or required in the tasks specifically related to the job. In the pre-
sent study we focus on this classification of job performance facets.
Greenidge et al. (2014) found all four EI dimensions to have significant
direct influence on extra-role performance. Bozionelos and Singh (2017)
found a quadratic model to be the best fit (versus linear model) for over-
all EI and each of the four EI dimensions for in-role and extra-role
per-formance.
The reminder of the identified studies examined overall job perform-
ance, often measuring a combination of task and context characteristics.
Shamsuddin and Rahman (2014) found ROE and UOE to be significant
predictors of general job performance. In contrast, Law et al. (2008)
found OEA and ROE to have significant associations with general job
performance and Huang et al. (2010) found that only ROE had a direct
significant impact on work performance. Mulki et al. (2015) found ROE
to be positively associated with job performance. Also focusing on a sin-
gle EI dimension, Locander et al. (2014) found ROE to have an indirect
association with general job performance through adaptive selling.
Overall, the multitude of findings suggests that the relationships
between EI dimensions and overall job performance as well as job
6
Table 1. Summary of previous studies on the relation between EI dimensions and different outcomes.
Study Sample and study context EI dimensions Outcome Analysis Main findings
Bozionelos and N ¼ 188, expatriates, mixed SEA, OEA, ROE, UOE JP Regression All EI dimensions are positively related to JP
Singh (2017) country sample
Extremera N ¼ 405, professionals, Spain SEA, OEA, ROE, UOE JS Regression Overall EI and the four EI dimension are directly related
et al. (2018) to JS as well as indirectly through vigour, dedication,
and absorption
G€
ulery€uz N ¼ 267, hospital SEA, OEA, ROE, UOE JS CB-SEM OEI is positively related to JS; ROE positive effect on JS
et al. (2008) nurses, Turkey (no effect for SEA, OEA, UOE)
C. SCHLAEGE ET AL.
Guy and N ¼ 167, public service SEA, OEA, ROE JS CB-SEM OEA is negatively related to JS, SEA is positively related
Lee (2015) employees, Turkey to JS (no effect for ROE)
Greenidge N ¼ 222, employees (mixed SEA, OEA, ROE, UOE JS, JP CB-SEM UOE, SEA, and ROE are positively related to JS (no effect
et al., (2014) industries), Caribbean for OEA), UOE and ROE are positively related to JP
(no effect for SEA and OEA)
Huang N ¼ 493, call center SEA, OEA, ROE, UOE JP Regression UOE is positively associated with JP (no significant
et al. (2010) agents, China relation for ROE, SEA, and OEA)
Kafetsios N ¼ 179, teacher, Greece SEA, OEA, ROE, UOE JS Regression OEA and UOE are positively associated with JS (no
et al. (2011) effect for SEA and ROE)
Kafetsios and N ¼ 523, educators, Greece SEA, OEA, ROE, UOE JS CB-SEM, regression OEI is positively related to JS, OEA, UOE, and ROE are
Zampetakis positively related to JS (no effect for SEA)
(2008)
Khalid et al. (2018) N ¼ 144, pharmacists SEA, OEA, ROE, UOE JP PLS-SEM All fours EI dimensions are significantly and positively
employees, Pakistan correlated with JP (the direct effect of EI on JS was
not reported)
Law et al. (2008) N ¼ 102, R&D scientists, China SEA, OEA, ROE, UOE JP Regression OEA and ROE are positively associated with JP (no effect
for SEA and UOE)
Lee (2018) N ¼ 167, public service SEA, OEA, ROE, UOE JS CB-SEM SEA is positively related to JS; OEA is negatively related
employees, U.S. to JS (no effect for ROE)
Lee and N ¼ 322, high school SEA, OEA, ROE, UOE JS CB-SEM Overall EI is significantly related to JS, all four EI
Chelladurai coaches, U.S. dimensions are significantly and positively correlated
(2018) with JS
Locander N ¼ 279, medical supply and SEA, ROE JP CB-SEM No effect for both SEA and ROE
et al. (2014) real estate sales agents, U.S.
Meisler and N ¼ 368, employees (financial SEA, OEA, ROE, UOE JS CB-SEM Overall EI is significantly related to JS, except for SEA all
Vigoda- organization), Israel EI dimensions are significantly and positively
Gadot (2014) correlated with JS
Mulki et al. (2015) N ¼ 850, salespersons, Mexico ROE JP CB-SEM ROE is positively related to JP
(continued)
Table 1. Continued.
Study Sample and study context EI dimensions Outcome Analysis Main findings
Pekaar Study 1: N ¼ 68, lawyers, SEA, OEA, ROE, UOE JP Regression Study 1: OEA is positively related to subjective JP (no
et al. (2017) Netherlands; effect for SEA, ROE, and UOE); Study 2: OEA is
Study 2: N ¼ 61, positively associated with objective JP (no effect for
salespersons, Netherlands SEA, ROE, UOE)
Shamsuddin and N ¼ 118, call center agents, SEA, ROE, UOE JP Regression Overall EI is positively related to JP, ROE and UOE are
Rahman (2014) Kuala Lumpur positively related to JP, SEA shows no significant
association
Sun et al. (2017) N ¼ 398, teacher, China SEA, OEA, ROE, UOE JS CB-SEM Coping humor mediates the relation between UOE as
well as ROE and JS
Trivellas N ¼ 145, hospital SEA, OEA, ROE, UOE JS PLS-SEM SEA and UOE are positively related to JS (no effect for
et al. (2013) employees, Greece OEA and ROE)
Uslu and N ¼ 146, employees, Turkey SEA, OEA, ROE, UOE JS Regression Overall EI and the four EI dimensions are positively
Uslu (2019) associated with JS
Yan et al. (2018) N ¼ 356, nurses, China SEA, OEA, ROE, UOE JS CB-SEM Overall EI is significantly related to JS, all EI dimensions
are significantly and positively correlated with JS
Note: CB-SEM ¼ covariance based structural equation modeling, JP ¼ job performance, JS ¼ job satisfaction, OEA ¼ others’ emotional appraisal, OEI ¼ overall EI, PLS-SEM ¼ partial least
squares structural equation modeling, ROE ¼ regulation of emotion, SEA ¼ self-emotional appraisal, UOE ¼ use of emotion.
7
performance facets are complex, leaving unresolved the importance of

the individual EI dimensions and the specific blend of EI dimensions
that result in higher job performance. A potential reason for the ambigu-
ous findings is that previous studies have largely focused on overall job
performance and few studies have examined the different facets of job
performance. Thus, we still lack a deeper understanding of which EI
dimensions or sets of EI dimensions contribute to in-role and extra-role
performance. This is an important limitation of previous research as EI
should be especially relevant for those performance aspects that go
beyond formal job requirements. Such behaviors often involve social
interactions and the assessment, regulation, and use of emotions, which
are abilities required to effectively identify those situations in which cow-
orkers and the organization as a whole benefit from extra-role behaviors.
EI dimensions and job satisfaction

Also for the relations between EI dimensions and job satisfaction—the
‘positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job
experience’ (Locke, 1976, p. 1300)—the results are remarkably inconsist-
ent. While Uslu and Uslu (2019) as well as Lee and Chelladurai (2018)
found all four EI dimensions to have a positive association with job satis-
faction, Guy and Lee (2015) found SEA and OEA to be positively related
to job satisfaction. Trivellas et al. (2013) as well as Kafetsios et al. (2011)
found SEA and UOE to be significantly related to job satisfaction. Lee
(2018) found SEA to have a positive association and OEA to have a
negative association with job satisfaction. Greenidge et al. (2014) found
all EI dimensions except for OEA to be positively associated with job sat-
isfaction. In contrast, G€ ulery€
uz et al. (2008) found that of the four EI
dimensions ROE had significant positive association with individual job
satisfaction, external job satisfaction, and overall job satisfaction, with
SEA also having a significant positive relation with external job satisfac-
tion. Extremera et al. (2018) found all four EI dimensions to be directly
related to job satisfaction. Kafetsios and Zampetakis (2008) found OEA,
UOE, and ROE to have significant direct effects on job satisfaction.
In summary, a key observation of our literature review is that not all
EI dimensions contribute equally to job satisfaction and job performance.
Furthermore, while some EI dimensions are related to job satisfaction,
the same EI dimensions are not necessarily related to job performance.
Consequently, we know little about the similarities and differences in the
structure and importance of EI dimensions for specific outcomes as well
as across different outcomes. This suggests studies focusing on overall EI
(i.e. the first analytical approach), have left the specific effects of the
individual EI dimensions uncovered. This is an important limitation as it

hinders the development of more precise theoretical models that may
better explicate the specific EI dimensions and sets of EI dimensions
relevant in predicting a specific work-related attitude or behavior.
Although those studies that examine the individual EI dimensions (i.e.
the second analytical approach) provide a more detailed picture, they
focus on the additive predictive explanatory power of the EI dimensions
and do not uncover relevant sets of EI dimensions. Furthermore, focus-
ing only on the individual effect of a particular EI dimension may lead
researchers to draw misleading implications from their data and analysis.
An EI dimension that shows no significant individual effect on a specific
outcome might still be of high theoretical and practical relevance as it
contributes to the explained variance through a common effect with a
second or a third EI dimension. Due to the interrela-tions of EI dimen-
sions, the results of regression analysis and structural equation modeling
may be influenced by suppressor effects, which may also lead to a mis-
leading interpretation of findings.
Guy and Lee (2015) hypothesized a positive effect of SEA, OEA, and
ROE on job satisfaction. They reported moderate correlations between
the three EI dimensions (i.e. SEA-ROE r ¼ .215; SEA-OEA r ¼ .442;
OEA-ROE r ¼ .249) and positive correlations between the three EI
dimension and job satisfaction (JS) (i.e. SEA-JS r ¼ .211; OEA-JS r ¼
.039; ROE-JS r ¼ .158). Based on structural equation modeling (SEM)
they found a statistically significant positive SEM coefficient between
SEA and job satisfaction (b ¼ .228), a statistically significant negative
relation between OEA and job satisfaction (b ¼ .203) given the positive
correlation (r ¼ .039), and a statistically insignificant positive SEM coef-
ficient for the association between ROE and job satisfaction (b ¼ .025)
given a significant positive correlation (r ¼ .158). Interpreting their find-
ings Guy and Lee (2015, p. 268) state that the negative relationship
between OEA and job satisfaction is ‘ … counter to the commonly
assumed relationship … ’ and that one ‘ … can speculate that being ‘on
guard’ or ever vigilant about what others are feeling draws workers’
attention away from the work at hand’. Due to the correlation among EI
dimensions, sets of EI dimensions may also suppress the (significant)
effects of other EI dimensions, potentially resulting in the incorrect
assessment of a dimensions relative importance in predicting an out-
come. This example highlights that even with moderate correlations
between EI dimensions the results from an empirical approach that
focuses solely on the additive value of EI dimensions may mislead
researchers’ interpretation of findings. With this example we do not
intend to criticize the authors, but rather to create awareness for the
need to go beyond regression analysis and SEM and use analytical proce-
dures that may explain such effects.
An additional observation of our literature review is that, while the
reviewed studies have been conducted in various countries, to the best of
our knowledge, no previous study compared the relationships between
EI dimensions and relevant outcomes across countries. Although differ-
ences in the measurement of job satisfaction and job performance across
studies might cause inconsistent findings, another explanation might be
that the strength and structure of relationships between EI dimensions
and outcomes vary across countries. As emotions have both universal
and culture-specific features (e.g. Shao et al., 2015) the question remains
as to whether the same individual EI dimensions and sets of dimensions
are related to outcomes, such as job satisfaction and job performance.
This is an important gap in our understanding, as we do not know
whether theoretical models developed in one specific cultural context still
hold in a different cultural context, ultimately hindering the development
of more precise theoretical predictions (Rousseau & Fried, 2001).
To address the identified limitations of previous studies, we propose
and explore a third empirical approach towards EI, which is able to over-
come the limitations of the two standard approaches. Based on common-
ality analysis and samples from three countries we explore and compare
the unique and common effects of EI dimensions for job satisfaction and
job performance. In the next section we introduce this approach and
demonstrate its relevance in EI research.
Decomposing the variance explained by EI dimensions in job satisfaction

and job performance
The theoretical foundation for the empirical approach we are proposing
is the mutualism model of general intelligence (Van Der Maas et al.,
2006). In this study we follow Huynh et al. (2018) argument for mutual
interrelations between EI dimensions. Huynh et al. (2018) argue that the
different EI dimensions ‘mutually influence each other’ without a
‘particular directionality’ and that the dimensions function in ‘mutually
reinforcing processes’ (Huynh et al., 2018, p. 114). This mutualism per-
spective is a key point underlying the mutualism model of general intelli-
gence (Van Der Maas et al., 2006), which posits that intelligence is based
on underlying cognitive processes and that ‘mutual beneficial or facilitat-
ing relations’ between these processes support the development of other
processes related to this intelligence (Van Der Maas et al., 2006). The
positive relations between processes can be direct (i.e. bidirectional) or
indirect (i.e. through other processes). Van Der Maas et al. (2006) argue
that such mutual relations have been described in previous research for
various cognitive processes (e.g. Dweck, 1986; Gibson, 1986). In the
mutualism model, specific cognitive processes mutually influence each
other within specific environmental constraints—an aspect that becomes
important later in our argument for cross-country comparisons. Van Der
Maas et al. (2006) point out that they view cognitive processes in a gen-
eral sense, including abilities and specific facets of these abilities, and
that the mutual relations between these cognitive abilities are not limited
to intellectual intelligence but also apply to the social and emotional
domain. As Mayer et al. (2000) as well as Law et al. (2004) conceptual-
ized EI as a set of interrelated abilities that are developmental in nature,
the mutualism perspective is a fruitful ground to describe the interrela-
tions of the EI dimensions.
Drawing on the mutualism perspective, we argue that neither the the-
oretical frameworks nor the methodological approaches currently used in
EI research fully account for the mutual interrelations of EI dimensions.
From a theoretical perspective, Joseph and Newman (2010) cascading
model of EI is an important first step as it posits that some EI dimen-
sions influence outcomes through other EI dimensions. However, the
model predicts a specific order and directionality of interrelations and
does not account for the potential mutual interrelations. From a meth-
odological perspective, the two dominant analytical approaches do not
account for the mutual interrelations of sets of EI dimensions and, as a
result, we still have a limited understanding of the role of all potential
effects in explaining employees’ attitudes and behaviors. Commonality
analysis is an analytical approach that goes beyond regression analysis
and SEM by providing information on the specific contribution of each
independent variable and all combinations of independent variables
(Nimon, 2011; Schoen et al., 2011). In a commonality analysis the R2
values regenerated in regressions of all possible sub-sets of predictors are
used in formulas to calculate commonality coefficients, which indicate
the amount of variance that an independent variable individually and
sets of independent variable jointly explain in a dependent variable.
For the four EI dimensions the total explained variance can be parti-
tioned into 16 effects—four unique effects and twelve common effects,
including six common effects of two EI dimensions, four common effect
of all four EI dimensions. Figure 1 illustrates the unique and common
variance explained by the four EI dimensions.
A unique effect (U1, U2, U3, and U4) indicates how much variance a
single EI dimension explains in the outcome. Common effects indicate
how much variance is jointly explained by sets of EI dimensions. A com-
mon effect of two EI dimensions (C5, C6, C7, C8, C9, and C10) would
Figure 1. Decomposition of the variance explained by dimensions of emotional intelligence

in employees’ work-related attitudes and behaviors.
mean that a change in one EI dimension only influences an outcome if

accompanied by a change in another EI dimension. Thus, a common
effect of two EI dimensions requires a corresponding change in both EI
dimensions. Common effects of three EI dimensions are represented by
C11, C12, C13, and C14. The common effect of all four EI dimensions is
represented by C15. The total variance explained (Total) refers to the
sum of all unique and common effects.
From a theoretical perspective, the EI dimensions’ common effects
that explain variance in a work outcome can be described as the degree
to which changes in a work outcome are due to changes in two, three,
or all four EI dimensions, e.g. the variation in job performance that is
associated with covariation between SEA and OEA. Common effects can,
therefore, be understood as an overlap in the explanatory ability of EI
dimensions. A common effect is different from an interaction effect (i.e.
an interaction of two or three EI dimensions). An interaction effect is
present if the strength of a relationship between an independent variable
and a dependent variable is contingent on the level of another independ-
ent variable. For example, an interaction between SEA and OEA would
be present if SEA only has a stronger effect on job performance for a
higher level of OEA. A common effect requires the variables to jointly
influence the outcome, i.e. to observe a common effect between SEA and
OEA. A change in SEA only has an effect on job performance if it is
accompanied with a change in OEA, independently of the actual level of
SEA and OEA. Therefore, common effects require EI dimensions to be
correlated. However, common effects do not require the EI dimensions
to relate causally to one another. In line with the mutualism perspective
and mutual interrelations between EI dimensions, when interpreting
common effects of two, three, or all four EI dimensions we can say that
the effect of one EI dimension on an outcome is conditioned on vari-
ation in one, two, or three other EI dimensions.
Our current understanding of the structure of the relation between EI
dimensions and job satisfaction as well as job performance is limited to
the sum of all common effects of overall EI (i.e. the unidimensional
approach) and the total effect of unique and common effects of EI
dimensions (i.e. the multidimensional approach). While previous studies
have extensively provided arguments for unique effects of EI dimensions
on job satisfaction and job performance, these studies have not examined
the specific unique effect of each EI dimension (i.e. the variance
explained only by variations in a single EI dimension when all other EI
dimensions remain constant). Furthermore, in previous studies the com-
mon effects of sets of two or three EI dimensions were only implicitly
considered. For example, in explaining the relation between EI and job
satisfaction Sy et al. (2006, p. 462) argue that ‘ … employees with high EI
may be better at identifying feelings of frustration and stress, and subse-
quently, regulating those emotions to reduce stress’. Thus, Sy et al. impli-
citly suggest that an alignment between SEA and ROE is what influences
job satisfaction, independently of variations in the other two EI dimen-
sions. Also in their argumentation for the relation between EI and job
performance Sy et al. (2006, p. 462) implicitly assume a common effect
between two EI dimensions by stating that employees ‘ … with high emo-
tional intelligence should be more adept at regulating their own emo-
tions and managing others’ emotions to foster more positive
interactions … ’, which ultimately could lead to higher job performance.
Thus, by aligning the effects of variation in ROE and OEA, this argu-
ment describes a common effect of two EI dimensions, independently of
the other EI dimensions. These common effects of EI dimensions so far
have neither been explicitly hypothesized nor empirically examined.
Given the current lack of a strong theoretical or empirical rationale, we
formulate the following explorative research question:
Research question 1: What is the structure and relevance of unique and common
effects of EI dimensions for in-role performance, extra-role performance, and job
satisfaction?
Contextualizing the unique and common effects of EI dimensions

Previous studies stressed the importance of the specific composition of
EI dimensions to explain variance in corresponding outcomes (e.g.
Bozionelos & Singh, 2017; Greenidge et al., 2014). Underlying the idea
that different EI dimensions are relevant in predicting different outcomes
is the notion that different EI dimensions enable employees to appropri-

ately respond to job demands and to handle job-related pressures and
challenges. When just considering overall EI (i.e. the unidimensional
approach) differences in the structure and relevance of individual EI
dimensions for a specific outcome remain unrevealed, unaddressed, and
unexplained. For example, a study that examines the association between
overall EI and two distinct outcomes finds differences in the strength of
these associations. Based on the results for overall EI this study is not
able to reveal whether all EI dimensions have a stronger effect for a spe-
cific outcome compared to the other or if specific differences in EI
dimensions cause the difference. Thus, the proposed third approach pro-
vides more theoretical precision and refines and extends our understand-
ing of EI.
The results of previous studies indicate that not all EI dimensions
show significant unique effects for job performance and job satisfaction
(Greenidge et al., 2014). One may argue that the different domains cov-
ered by the four EI dimensions result in stronger associations of specific
individual EI dimensions with different outcomes. For example, com-
pared to the other EI dimensions, UOE should be more strongly associ-
ated with in-role performance. Individuals with a high degree of UOE
are able to channel their emotions towards valuable activities and they
are able to encourage themselves to do better constantly and in this way
achieve a higher individual performance (Law et al., 2004, p. 484).
However, this motivational aspect of EI alone might not be sufficient as
the preparation for, and performance of, responsibilities involved in
most occupations requires individuals to perceive and appraise their own
emotions to direct their attention to their work. Consequently, in add-
ition to the unique effect of UOE the common effect of UOE and SEA
should explain variance in in-role performance.
For job satisfaction UOE should be a relevant unique predictor as
individuals who are more motivated and who channel their emotions
into productive outcomes should perceive their work as being more satis-
fying (Miao et al., 2017). As an individual’s satisfaction with a job may
be based on both in-role and extra-role behaviors, both SEA and OEA
should contribute jointly together with the UOE to higher levels of job
satisfaction. Moreover, for job satisfaction the joint effect of ROE with
the other EI dimensions should contribute to higher levels of job satis-
faction, as individuals, for example, are better able to cope with feelings
that could distract them from work, resulting in a more satisfying per-
ception of their work. In summary, while job satisfaction, in-role per-
formance, and extra-role performance in general benefit from a higher
level of UOE and the related higher motivation, the common effect of
sets of specific EI dimensions may well explain additional variance in the

respective outcome. Given the current lack of theoretical development
and empirical evidence in this area, we formulate the following explora-
tive research question:
Research question 2: Do structure and relevance of unique and common effects of
EI dimensions vary across in-role performance, extra-role performance, and job
satisfaction?
Recent conceptual work proposes that cultural values influence work-

related behaviors through individuals’ emotions as well as the relation-
ships between individuals’ emotions and work-related behaviors (e.g.
Taras et al., 2011; Tsui et al., 2007). Extant research shows that cultural
values are associated with EI dimensions (Gunkel et al., 2014; Shao et al.,
2015) and provides initial support for the influence of cultural values on
workrelated behaviors through EI (Gunkel et al., 2016). However, we still
lack a foundational understanding whether and to what degree the rela-
tionships between EI and work-related attitudes and behaviors differ
across countries. Previous research on the EI-job satisfaction and the EI-
job performance relationships has been limited to single-country studies.
To the best of our knowledge, no comparative cross-country studies have
been conducted. Based on meta-analytic synthesis of such single country
studies, Miao et al. (2017) have examined the association between lead-
ers’ EI and subordinates’ task performance and between leaders’ EI and
subordinates’ organizational citizenship behavior. They found that cul-
tural value dimensions moderate both relationships, indicating that the
association between EI and work-related behaviors is context specific.
While this is an important finding, the results of the meta-analysis are
based on overall EI and not the EI dimensions. Differences across coun-
tries in the consequences of overall EI could arise due to differences in
the strengths of effects for the same EI dimension across countries or
due to differences in the strengths of effects for different EI dimensions
across countries. This is an important limitation as theoretical and prac-
tical implications derived from unobserved distinct effects of EI dimen-
sions could be misleading. The mutualism model of general intelligence
(Van Der Maas et al., 2006) posits that mutual interrelations between
cognitive abilities are taking place within environmental constraints. The
environmental context can facilitate or hinder the interrelations between
EI dimensions, ultimately resulting in stronger or weaker association
with the consequences of the EI dimensions in different environments. A
better understanding of the country-specific consequences of EI is import-
ant, as firms’ operations and workforces are becoming more international,
creating challenges in transferring theoretical models developed in one
country into other contexts (e.g. Whetten, 2009). Thus, it is valuable to
explore the extent to which theoretical models have explanatory power in

different institutional and cultural contexts and develop a more contextual-
ized understanding (e.g. Jordan et al., 2010; Rousseau & Fried, 2001). Given
the initial theoretical and empirical support for context-specific effects of EI,
we formulate the following explorative research question:
Research question 3: Do structure and relevance of unique and common effects of
EI dimensions on in-role performance, extra-role performance, and job
satisfaction vary across countries?
Methodology
Data collection and samples
To answer our exploratory research questions, we collected data in
Germany, India, and the United States (U.S.). The three countries vary
substantially in their cultural norms and values and represent three of
the eleven cultural clusters identified by Ronen and Shenkar (2013):
Anglo (U.S.), Germaanic (Germany), and Far East (India). While three
countries do not allow us to explicitly statistically test for similarities and
differences across countries (Franke & Richey, 2010), our sample base
enables us to contrast the findings across countries (e.g. Tsui, 2007; Tsui
et al., 2007).
After several pilot tests the participants for the final survey for the
Indian sample and the U.S. sample were recruited using Amazon’s
Mechanical Turk (MTurk). MTurk is an online marketplace that allows
anyone to request and perform computer-based tasks in exchange for
payment. Since its public release in 2005, MTurk has been adapted by
social scientists to conduct research projects in psychology, political sci-
ence, sociology, and economics (Bohannon, 2016). Several studies indi-
cate that MTurk can be used to collect high quality data (e.g. Goodman
et al., 2013). To ensure data quality we followed the recommendations in
the literature for research using MTurk (Cheung et al., 2017). First, par-
ticipants had to have completed at least 100MTurk tasks with an
approval rate of at least 95% and had to be based in India or the U.S.
Second, the MTurk job advertisement specified that participants must be
currently employed or must have been employed within the past year to
be eligible for the survey. Third, two verification questions were included
in the MTurk survey. Participants, who indicated that they were either
not currently, or within the past year employed, or who failed to answer
the two verification questions correctly, were automatically excluded
from the data collection. MTurk allows the researcher to limit potential
participants based on their MTurk performance history as well as their
physical location, which is inferred based on their Internet Protocol (IP)

and billing addresses. Finally, participants were offered a monetary
incentive in exchange for completing the survey. The survey was adver-
tised on MTurk for two weeks. A total of 263 individuals participated in
the survey for the U.S. sample and 252 participants completed the
MTurk survey for the Indian sample.
Prior research indicates that survey language might influence partici-
pants’ responses and the findings of a study (e.g. Harzing, 2006).
Consequently, researchers should use the native language of respondents
(Harzing et al., 2013). For the MTurk survey we used English as the sur-
vey language as English is the established language for most businesses
in India and the native language for U.S. respondents. At the time of
data collection, MTurk only offered an English language option, and,
therefore, we used another approach to collect the data for the German
sample. To ensure linguistic as well as conceptual equivalence for the
German survey we translated the original questions from English to
German and back-translated the questions into English (Brislin, 1980).
We used the translated German questions in an online questionnaire
that was distributed via email over the course of one month by one of
the coauthors (overlapped the MTurk collection period). The online sur-
vey was distributed throughout several channels, including two German
banks, one airline catering company, one entertainment company, and
several small regional enterprises. A total of 285 surveys were completed
for the German sample. Table 2 provides an overview of sample
characteristics.
The respondents in each of the three countries tended to be of a simi-
lar age group, well educated, and experienced in work. The sample
groups had more women than men for the German and the U.S. sample,
while the Indian sample had more men than women. The U.S. sample
had an almost equal number of supervisory and non-supervisory person-
nel, while the Germany sample had somewhat more supervisory person-
nel and the Indian sample consisted of significantly more supervisory
personnel. An analysis of business operations and job classifications was
done using NAICS 2-digit codes. All three countries had representation
in at least 16 of the 17 classifications.
Measures
Emotional intelligence
We used the Wong and Law emotional intelligence scale (WLEIS; Wong
& Law, 2002; Law et al., 2004) to measure overall EI and the four EI
dimensions. The WLEIS was specifically designed as a short measure of
Table 2. Summary of sample characteristics.

Characteristics German sample Indian sample U.S. sample
Age Mean 3.08 (26 to 40) Mean 3.03 (26 to 40) Mean 3.15 (26 to 40)
Less than 18 (1) 0% 0% 0%
18 to 25 (2) 23% 15% 18%
26 to 40 (3) 52% 69% 57%
41 to 55 (4) 19% 14% 16%
Over 55 (5) 6% 2% 9%
Gender 58% female 27% female 59% female
Education Mean 3.68 Mean 5.29 Mean 4.32
High school 42% 0% 0%
or less (1)
High school 0% 2% 11%
graduate (2)
University (no 0% 2% 20%
degree) (3)
University associate 0% 9% 12%
degree (2 year) (4)
Undergraduate 24% 40% 51%
degree (5)
Master degree (6) 34% 46% 10%
Doctorate or 0% 1% 1%
equivalent (7)
Work experience 11 years 9 years 15 years
(average)
Work role 28% supervisor 86% supervisor 48% supervisor
Industry (top three)
First most 32% Finance/insurance 31% Information 16% Wholesale
often reported trade/retail
Second most 11% Industrial 19% Educational 13% Educational
often reported enterprises services services
Third most 9% Information 12% Finance/insurance 12% Finance/insurance
often reported
Note: German sample N ¼ 285. Indian sample N ¼ 251. U.S. sample N ¼ 263.
EI for use in organizational research. Prior studies also showed good

measurement invariance of the measure across countries (e.g. Gunkel
et al., 2016; LaPalme et al., 2016; Libbrecht et al., 2014). Each of the 16
items was assessed with a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from 1,
‘totally disagree’, to 7, ‘totally agree’. Following Wong and Law (2002)
the overall EI variable was calculated as an unweighted average of the
items (Germany a ¼ .81; India a ¼ .83; U.S. a ¼ .93).
The first EI dimension, SEA, was measured using four items (e.g. ‘I
have a good sense of why I have certain feelings most of the time’.). The
reliability was good across samples (Germany a ¼ .75; India a ¼ .80;
U.S. a ¼ .89). The second EI dimension, OEA, was measured with four
items (e.g. ‘I always know my friends’ emotions from their behavior’.),
showing a high reliability (Germany a ¼ .87; India a ¼ .84; U.S. a ¼
.87). The third EI dimension, UOE, was measured with four items (e.g.
‘I always set goals for myself and then try my best to achieve them’.),
showing good reliability (Germany a ¼ .70; India a ¼ .83; U.S. a ¼ .84).
The fourth EI dimension, ROE, was measured with four items (e.g. ‘I
have good control of my own emotions’.). For all four EI dimensions we
combined the item scores using the unweighted average of items consti-
tuting the respective EI dimension (Germany a ¼.84; India a ¼ .85; U.S.
a ¼ .86).
In-role performance
This variable was measured with five items based on Williams and
Anderson (1991) and a five point Likert-type scale (1, ‘strongly disagree’, to
5, ‘strongly agree’). We selected this measure as it has been widely used by
other researchers in this specific research area and, in general, has shown a
high reliability and validity in previous research (e.g. Devonish &
Greenidge, 2010). We also selected this measure as previous studies found
measurement invariance for the items of this measure across countries (e.g.
Varela et al., 2010). A sample item was ‘I adequately complete my assigned
duties’. The variable was calculated as a simple average of the items
(Germany a ¼ .63; India a ¼ .81; U.S. a ¼ .90).
Extra-role performance
We used four items developed by Varela and Landis (2010) to measure this
variable. We used this measure, as it is has shown high reliability and validity
in previous studies and, appropriate to the EI research context of our study,
this measure emphasizes extra-role behavior related to relevant others in the
workplace. Each item was measured on a five-point Likerttype scale (1,
‘strongly disagree’, to 5, ‘strongly agree’). A sample item was ‘I assist and care
for others in my workplace’. The measure was calculated as the unweighted
average of the items (Germany a ¼ .65; India a ¼ .70; U.S. a ¼ .74).
Job satisfaction
Job satisfaction was measured using five items developed by Bacharach
et al. (1991). We selected this general measure of job satisfaction, as it
captures the broad domain of job satisfaction and has shown high reli-
ability and validity in previous studies (e.g. Janssen & Van Yperen,
2004). The seven-point response scale ranged from 1, ‘very dissatisfied’,
to 7, ‘very satisfied’. An example item is ‘How satisfied or dissatisfied are
you with your present job in light of your career expectations?’ We cal-
culated the measure using the simple average of the items (Germany a ¼
.89; India a ¼ .90; U.S. a ¼ .94).
Control variables
In line with previous research, we included five control variables: Age,
gender, education, work experience, and work role. Both theory and
broad empirical evidence suggest that age is associated with different fac-
ets of job performance (e.g. Dobrow Riza et al., 2018; Ng & Feldman,
2008) and job satisfaction (e.g. Ng & Feldman, 2010b). Age was meas-
ured with five response categories (see Table 2). Theory and empirics
also suggest that gender may be influential for job performance (Bowen
et al., 2000) and job satisfaction (Dormann & Zapf, 2001). Gender was
measured with a dichotomous variable coded ‘1’ if the respondent was
female and ‘0’ if male. There is both theoretical argument and empirical
evidence suggesting that the level of education may be related to various
favorable and unfavorable attitudes and behaviors of employees (e.g. Ng
& Feldman, 2009). Education was measured by asking participants to
report their highest level of education and was assessed using seven cate-
gories (see Table 2). Previous research theoretically argued and empiric-
ally showed that work experiences and work roles are associated with
different attitudes and behaviors of employees (e.g. Gunkel & Schlaegel,
2010; Ng & Feldman, 2010a). Work experience was measured by asking
respondents to indicate the total number of years they had worked (‘For
approximately how many total years have you been employed (all
jobs)?’). Work role was measured by asking participants to report
whether or not they supervise employees in their current or most recent
position (dummy coded: 1 ¼ supervisor role, 0 ¼ no supervisor role). The
surveys also had each respondent identify their business area, the country
of citizenship, and the country of birth.
Common method variance, measurement model, and

measurement invariance
The present study used a self-report questionnaire in a cross-sectional
research design with a single respondent, which may result in common
method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003). We followed the recommenda-
tions in the literature (e.g. Burton-Jones, 2009) and used different techni-
ques and approaches in the design of the questionnaire and during the
data collection to reduce common method variance. First, to avoid that
respondents answered multiple consecutive items that assessed the same
construct and to reduce hypothesis guessing, we used MTurk’s ability to
randomize the order of survey items. For the data collection in Germany
we also varied the order of the questions in the online survey accord-
ingly. Second, we used different response formats in the survey (e.g. dif-
ferent anchor points and Likert-type scales for the different constructs).
Third, we pretested and pilot-tested the questionnaire to ensure the clar-

ity of instructions and items and assured respondents that their
responses will be anonymous. As a post hoc analysis we conducted
Harman’s single-factor test and found no single factor that accounted for
the majority of variance. The results show that the amount of variance
explained using a single factor was well below the 50% threshold
(Germany: 31%; India: 0%; U.S.: 27%). Next, we conducted a CFA in
which we added a common latent factor to the measurement model. The
common latent factor loadings were insignificant for the three countries.
In summary, the results suggest that common method variance was not
a significant problem in the dataset.
Measurement invariance is a necessary prerequisite for meaningful
cross-cultural comparisons (Harzing et al., 2013; Nimon & Reio, 2011).
Furthermore, prior research suggests that measurement invariance is an
important factor in the examination of EI across cultures (e.g. Gunkel
et al., 2014). To identify any issues related to country-specific compo-
nents in the measurement model, we conducted CFA for each country
using the R lavaan package and maximum likelihood estimation proced-
ure. We followed the recommendations in the literature (e.g. Cheung &
Rensvold, 2002; Sinkovics et al., 2016) and used several fit indexes to
provide a complete assessment of model fit. We used the comparative fit
index (CFI; .9 or higher) and the root mean square error of approxima-
tion (RMSEA; below .08). We used the results of individual country CFA
to identify those items that build a baseline model for the multi-group
confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA). Consequently, intercorrelations,
the analysis of item-total correlations, and the CFA results. For further
analysis, we used a factor structure that was identical for all three coun-
tries. The CFA and MGCFA results are presented in Table 3.
The values of the CFI were above the .9 threshold and the RMSEAs
were below the .08 threshold across samples. Overall, the CFA results of
the revised measurement model indicate an acceptable fit. In examining
measurement invariance, we tested configural invariance, metric invari-
ance, and scalar invariance. Overall, the MGCFA results show that the
measurement model and, consequently, the results of the analysis can be
interpreted in the same way across samples.
Results
Tables 4–6 report the descriptive statistics and correlations. The results
show substantial correlations between the four EI dimensions (Germany:
.17 to .51; mean ¼ .38; India: .62 to .72; mean ¼ .67; U.S.: .47 to .73;
mean ¼ .59). These intercorrelations are comparable with average
Table 3. Results of confirmatory factor analysis and multi-group confirmatory fac-

tor analysis.
S N X2 df p CFI RMSEA DCFI
CFA results
German sample 285 638.925 340 .000 .904 .056 —
Indian sample 251 581.103 340 .000 .936 .053 —
U.S. sample 263 663.822 340 .000 .932 .060 —
MGCFA results
Configural invariance 799 1883.849 1020 .000 .926 .056 —
Metric invariance 799 1983.241 1068 .000 .921 .057 .005
Scalar invariance 799 2202.519 1108 .000 .906 .061 .015
Note: CFA ¼ Confirmatory factor analysis, MGCFA ¼ Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis, df ¼ Degrees of
freedom, CFI ¼ Comparative fit index, RMSEA ¼ Root mean square error of approximation.
correlation of .49 identified in prior meta-analytic studies (Elfenbein &

MacCann, 2017).
Our analytic strategy involved two steps. In the first step, we con-
ducted hierarchical regression analysis (a) to illustrate the differences in
the results based on the unidimensional analytical approach (i.e. overall
EI) and the multidimensional analytical approach (i.e. the four EI dimen-
sions) and (b) to establish a benchmark against which we evaluate the
results of the second analytical step, namely the commonality analysis.
We use the results of commonality analysis to answer our first research
questions. The commonality coefficients can be interpreted as effect sizes
that are negligible (<1%), small (1 to 9%), moderate (10 to 25%), or
large (>25%). We compare the findings of the commonality analysis
across the three outcomes variables to answer the second research ques-
tion. Finally we compare the findings across three countries to answer
the third research question.
The unique and common effects of EI dimensions on in-role performance

Table 7 presents the results of regression analysis for in-role
performance.
Model 1 included the five control variables. We focus on the incre-
mental variance explained (R2) when adding overall EI (Model 2a) and
the four EI dimensions (Model 2b) to the control variables. The control
variables included in Model 1 explain less than 10% collectively across
the samples. Adding overall EI in Model 2a explained a significant por-
tion of variance and incremental variance for the German sample (18%;
þ12% points), the Indian sample (36%; þ30% points), and the U.S. sam-
ple (31%; þ23% points). Adding the four EI dimensions to the control
variables in Model 2b explained a significant amount of variance and
incremental variance for the German sample (19%; þ13% points), the
Indian sample (40%; þ34% points), and the U.S. sample (38%; þ30%
points). The EI dimensions explained significantly more variance in in-
Table 4. Descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients for the German sample.
Variables Mean SD a AVE CR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 Age 3.08 0.82
2 Gender 0.58 0.49 .03
3 Education 3.68 2.30 .03 .05
4 Work experience 10.59 11.87 .80 .02 .27
5 Work role 0.28 0.45 .03 .30 .20 .01
6 Self-emotional appraisal 5.43 0.87 .75 .57 .84 .16 .05 .03 .15 .04
7 Others‘ emotional appraisal 5.33 0.98 .86 .69 .90 .07 .18 .02 .05 .01 .43
8 Use of emotion 5.49 0.85 .70 .54 .81 .03 .02 .09 .05 .08 .47 .27
9 Regulation of emotion 5.03 1.10 .84 .67 .89 .08 .20 .01 .07 .07 .51 .17 .41
10 Overall EI 5.32 0.69 .81 .51 .86 .12 .01 .02 .11 .04 .82 .64 .71 .74
11 In-role performance 4.57 0.52 .63 .56 .79 .11 .08 .08 .16 .05 .32 .19 .33 .23 .36
12 Extra-role performance 4.16 0.60 .65 .55 .78 .16 .02 .08 .12 .20 .25 .32 .40 .21 40 .34
13 Job satisfaction 5.07 1.41 .89 .70 .92 .12 -.06 -.03 .17 .06 .22 .10 .32 .31 .33 .21 .29
Note: N ¼ 285. Gender is dummy coded with female ¼ 1 and male ¼ 0. Work role is dummy coded with supervisor role ¼ 1 and no supervisor role ¼ 0. Correlations below -.11 and
above .11 are significant at p < .05. AVE ¼ average variance extracted. CR ¼ composite reliability.
23
24
C. SCHLAEGE ET AL.
Table 5. Descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients for the Indian sample.
1 Age 3.03 0.62
2 Gender 0.27 0.45 .05
3 Education 5.29 0.88 .14 .04
4 Work experience 9.37 8.86 .58 .01 .09
5 Work role 0.86 0.35 .15 .01 .07 .16
8 Use of emotion 5.88 0.83 .83 .67 .89 .11 .05 .14 .13 .24 .72 .66
10 Overall EI 5.76 0.74 .83 .67 .88 .15 .07 .16 .19 .23 .87 .85 .88 .86
12 Extra-role performance 3.36 0.53 .70 .53 .82 .16 .07 .09 .19 .31 .50 .54 .59 .38 .57 .64
13 Job satisfaction 5.46 0.98 .90 .71 .92 .14 .10 -.01 .18 .19 .40 .39 .51 .42 .49 .34 .47
Note: N ¼ 251. Gender is dummy coded with female ¼ 1 and male ¼ 0. Work role is dummy coded with supervisor role ¼ 1 and no supervisor role ¼ 0. Correlations below .13 and
Table 6. Descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients for the U.S. sample.
1 Age 3.15 0.81
2 Gender 0.59 0.49 .09
3 Education 4.32 1.22 .04 .07
4 Work experience 14.72 11.06 .76 .01 .09
5 Work role 0.48 0.50 .04 .19 .01 .03
8 Use of emotion 5.68 0.98 .84 .68 .89 .11 .15 .02 .06 .02 .73 .56
10 Overall EI 5.51 0.84 .93 .71 .91 .10 .12 .02 .06 .04 .87 .74 .87 .85
12 Extra-role performance 2.92 0.81 .74 .57 .84 .01 .06 .03 .01 .30 .37 .46 .49 .37 .51 .36
13 Job satisfaction 4.73 1.53 .94 .79 .95 .03 .11 .14 .00 .08 .27 .29 .41 .27 .37 .22 .43
Note: N ¼ 263. Gender is dummy coded with female ¼ 1 and male ¼ 0. Work role is dummy coded with supervisor role ¼ 1 and no supervisor role ¼ 0. Correlations below .12 and
25
26
Table 7. Results of regression analysis for in-role performance.

C. SCHLAEGE ET AL.
Germany India U.S. Germany India U.S. Germany India U.S.

Variables Ml M2a M2b Ml M2a M2b Ml M2a M2b
Age .17 (.111) -.19 (.111)- .17 (.075) .02 (.777) .01 (.917) .01 (.847) .15 (.108) .10 (.225) .09 (.233)
Gender .07 (.228) .07 (.228) .06 (.307) .05 (.429) .01 (.828) .01 (.822) .10 (.108) .05 (.388) .00 (.945)
Education .18 (.005) .17 (.005) .16 (.009) .10 (.114) .03 (.639) .02 (.742) .06 (.323) .05 (.364) .05 (.324)
Work experience .35 (.001) .33 (.001) .31(.002) .18 (.020) .10 (.103) .12 (.057) .07 (.471) .08 (.340) .07 (.345)
Work role -.06 (.362) -.07 (.222)- .07 (.231) .05 (.406) .06 (.278) .08 (.130) .14 (.022) .13 (.015) .17 (.001)
Overall EI .35 (.000) .58 (.000) .48 (.000)
Self-emotional appraisal .15 (.041) .16 (.049) .11 (.186)
Others‘ emotional appraisal .05 (.435) .11 (.128) .01 (.868)
Use of emotion .20 (.002) .44 (.000) .54 (.000)
Regulation of emotion .07 (.296) .05 (.471) .11 (.149)
F 3.71 (.003) 10.30 (.000) 8.03 (.000) 3.14 (.009) 22.73 (.000) 19.95 (.000) 4.54 (.001) 18.69 (.000) 17.50 (.000)
R2 .06 .18 .19 .06 .36 .40 .08 .31 .38
D R2 (M1/M2a; M1/M2b) .12 (.000) .13 (.000) .30 (.000) .34 (.000) .23 (.000) .30 (.000)
A R2 (M2a/M2b) .01 (z ¼ .39; p ¼ .699) .04 (z ¼ 1.65; p ¼ .100) .07 (z ¼ 2.84; p ¼ .005)
R2 adjusted .05 .16 .17 .04 .34 .38 .06 .29 .36
N 285 285 285 251 251 251 263 263 263
Note: Gender is dummy coded with female ¼ 1 and male ¼ 0. Work role is dummy coded with supervisor ¼ 1 and no supervisor ¼ 0. The p values are shown in parentheses. For the
comparison of Model 2a and Model 2b Steiger’s z values are presented.
role-performance than overall EI for the Indian sample (þ4% points)

and the U.S. sample (þ07% points) but not for the German sample
(þ1% point). The results show that while overall EI is significantly asso-
ciated with in-role performance for all three countries, not all four EI
dimensions contribute equally to the explained variance in in-role
performance.
If only focusing on regression results, researchers may conclude that
SEA and UOE are positively associated with in-role performance for
both the German and the Indian sample and UOE for the U.S. sample
but none of the other EI dimensions adds significantly to the explained
variance. The results of the commonality analysis provide a more
nuanced assessment of whether and how EI dimensions contribute to the
explained variance in in-role performance. We used the statistical pro-
gram R and the package ‘yhat’ to conduct commonality analysis (Nimon
& Oswald, 2013). The results of the commonality analysis are presented
in Table 8.
Table 8 provides the partitioning of the R2 for in-role performance
into unique, common, and total variance components of the four EI
dimensions. Each commonality coefficient indicates how much variance
of in-role performance is accounted for by the individual EI dimensions
or sets of EI dimensions. The ‘% Total’ column indicates how much of
the regression effect is accounted for by the associated EI dimension or
set of EI dimensions (commonality coefficient divided by the multiple
R2). For example, for the German sample the largest contribution to
explained variance is the variance unique to the UOE dimension (CC ¼
.034). This means that 23% of the variance in in-role performance is
associated with the variance that is uniquely explained by UOE. Three
sets of two EI dimensions (second-order commonalities) and two sets of
three EI dimensions (third-order commonalities) contribute to the
explained variance in in-role performance for the German sample. The
common effect of all four EI dimensions accounts for 8% of the variance
(CC ¼ .012).
A comparison of the unique and common effects shows that a sub-
stantial amount of the variance is uniquely associated with UOE across
the three countries, even though the commonality coefficients vary sub-
stantially across countries. The second-order commonality of SEA and
UOE contributes to the variance across all three countries. The common-
ality coefficients vary substantially across countries. Two of the third-
order commonalities contribute to the explained variance across the
three countries with substantially different commonality coefficients. The
contribution of the common effect of all four EI dimension also varies
across the three countries. In sum, while the structure of unique and
Table 8. Results of commonality analysis for in-role job performance.

Germany India U.S.
Variables CC %Total CC %Total CC %Total
Unique effect
Self-emotional appraisal (SEA) .0l8 l2 .012 3 .011 3
Others‘ emotional appraisal (OEA) .002 1 .007 2 .000 0
Use of emotion (UOE) .034 23 .070 l8 .l06 3l
Regulation of emotion (ROE) .001 1 .001 0 .005 2
Second-order commonalities
SEA & OEA .008 5 .007 2 .000 0
SEA & UOE .0l9 l3 .040 l0 .075 22
SEA & ROE .008 6 .001 0 .004 1
OEA & UOE .002 1 .0l9 5 .010 3
OEA & ROE .000 0 .001 0 .000 0
UOE & ROE .005 4 .001 0 .005 2
Third-order commonalities
SEA & OEA & UOE .0l2 8 .048 l2 .020 6
SEA & OEA & ROE .002 1 .002 1 .000 0
SEA & UOE & ROE .026 l7 .025 7 .054 l6
OEA & UOE & ROE .000 0 .009 2 .000 0
Fourth-order commonality
SEA & OEA & UOE & ROE .0l2 8 .l48 38 .066 20
Total effect
Unique effects plus all common effects .147 100 .387 100 .337 100
Note: The table reports the commonality coefficients (CC), which represent the respective explained variance
for the unique and common effects. % Total ¼ the percent of the total effect (relative explained variance).
Commonality coefficients that account for at least five percent of the explained variance are given in bold.
common effects is comparable across the three countries, the unique and
common effects and the total effect vary across countries. The results of
the commonality analysis go beyond regression analysis. For example,
while SEA has no significant association with in-role performance in the
regression analysis, commonality analysis reveals that SEA contributes to
the second-order, third- order, and fourth-order commonalities and
together with other EI dimensions explains variances in this
work outcome.
The unique and common effects of EI dimensions on extra-role performance

Table 9 presents the results of regression analysis for extra-role
performance.
The control variables included in Model 1 explained between 7 to 12%
collectively of the variation in extra-role performance across the samples.
Adding overall EI in Model 2a explained a significant portion of variance
and incremental variance for the German sample (21%; þ14%
points), the
Indian sample (37%; þ25% points), and the U.S. sample (36%; þ26%
points). Adding the four EI dimensions to the control variables in Model
2b explained a significant amount of variance and incremental variance
for the German sample (25%; þ18% points), the Indian sample (43%;
þ31% points), and the U.S. sample (38%; þ28% points). The EI
Table 9. Results of regression analysis for extra-role performance.
Germany India U.S.
Variables M1 M2a M2b M1 M2a M2b M1 M2a M2b
Age .14 (.191) .11 (.267) .14 (.142) .04 (.611) .02 (.703) .03 (.658) .01 (.910) .07 (.405) .05 (.530)
Gender .09 (.161) .08 (.694) .03 (.552) .07 (.275) .03 (.542) .02 (.637) .12 (.045) .07 (.203) .02 (.700)
Education .06 (.396) .05 (.449) .03 (.672) .05 (.401) .02 (.744) .03 (.605) .04 (.523) .03 (.615) .05 (.376)
Work experience .03 (.785) .01 (.914) .01 (.953) .12 (.122) .05 (.455) .06 (.302) .01 (.902) .00 (.999) .01 (.907)
Work role .21 (.001) .19 (.001) .17 (.004) .42 (.000) .18 (.001) .23 (.004) .31 (.000) .32 (.000) .30 (.000)
Overall EI .37 (.000) .52 (.000) .52 (.000)
Self-emotional appraisal .03 (.655) .11 (.154) .01 (.936)
Others emotional appraisal .22 (.000) .24 (.001) .28 (.000)
Use of emotion .32 (.000) .41 (.000) .28 (.001)
Regulation of emotion .04 (.502) .16 (.031) .07 (.318)
F 4.28 (.001) 12.25 (.000) 12.25 (.000) 6.76 (.000) 23.48 (.000) 20.03 (.000) 5.52 (.000) 23.67 (.000) 17.46 (.000)
R2 .07 .21 .25 .12 .37 .43 .10 .36 .38
D R2 (M1/M2a; M1/M2b) .14 (.000) .18 (.000) .25 (.000) .31 (.000) .26 (.000) .28 (.000)
A R2 (M2a/M2b) .04 (z ¼ 1.56; p ¼ .118) .06 (z ¼ 2.47; p ¼ .013) .02 (z ¼ .81; p ¼ .417)
R2 adjusted .06 .19 .23 .10 .35 .41 .08 .34 .36
N 285 285 285 251 251 251 263 263 263
29
Table 10. Results of commonality analysis for extra-role job performance.

Germany India U.S.
Variables CC %Total CC %Total CC %Total
Unique effect
Self-emotional appraisal (SEA) .001 0 .005 1 .001 0
Others’ emotional appraisal (OEA) .045 21 .037 9 .047 16
Use of emotion (UOE) .080 38 .072 18 .042 15
SEA & OEA .002 1 .011 3 .000 0
SEA & UOE .002 1 .030 7 .006 2
SEA & ROE .001 0 .003 1 .001 0
OEA & UOE .014 7 .039 10 .042 15
OEA & ROE .001 1 .007 2 .003 1
UOE & ROE .011 5 .010 3 .006 2
SEA & OEA & UOE .022 11 .064 16 .018 6
SEA & OEA & ROE .002 1 .001 0 .001 0
SEA & UOE & ROE .013 6 .005 1 .024 8
OEA & UOE & ROE .002 1 .010 2 .013 4
SEA & OEA & UOE & ROE .020 10 .139 35 .088 30
Total effect
dimensions explained significantly more variance in extra-role-perform-

ance than overall EI for the German sample (þ4% points), the Indian
sample (þ6% points), and the U.S. sample (þ02% points). The results
show that while overall EI is significantly associated with extra-role per-
formance for all three countries, the four EI dimensions do not equally
contribute to the explained variance in extra-role performance. Table 10
presents results of commonality analysis for extra-role performance.
OEA and UOE showed a unique contribution to the explained vari-
ance in extra-role performance across the three countries (the common-
ality coefficients vary substantially). The common effect of OEA and
UOE contributed to the explained variance across the three countries.
For the German and the Indian sample an additional set of EI dimen-
sions also contributed to the explained variance but at a lower extent.
The third-order commonality of SEA, OEA, and UOE contributed to the
explained variance across the three countries. For the German and the
U.S. sample the common effect of SEA, OEA, and ROE also contributed
to the explained variance. The common effect of all four EI dimensions
contributed to the explained variance in extra-role performance across
all three countries but with substantially different commonality coeffi-
cients. Overall, while the structure of unique and common effects is
comparable across the three countries (i.e. the same individual EI dimen-
sions and the same sets of EI dimensions influence extra-role
performance), the strength of the unique and common effects and the
total effect vary across countries.
The unique and common effects of EI dimensions on job satisfaction

Table 11 presents the results of regression analysis for job satisfaction.
The control variables in Model 1 collectively explained between 3 to
7% of the variation in job satisfaction. Adding overall EI in Model 2a
explained a significant portion of variance and incremental variance for
all samples (Germany: 13% þ10% points; India: 27%; þ20% points; U.S.:
17%; þ13% points). Adding the four EI dimensions to the control varia-
bles in Model 2b explained a significant amount of variance and incre-
mental variance for the three samples (Germany: 16%; þ13% points;
India: 30%; þ23% points; U.S.: 21%; þ17% points). The EI dimensions
explained significantly more variance in job satisfaction than overall EI
(Germany: þ3% points; India: þ3% points; U.S.: þ04% points). Across
the three samples the results show that while overall EI is significantly
associated with job satisfaction, the four EI dimensions do not equally
contribute to the explained variance. Table 12 presents the results of
commonality analysis for job satisfaction.
UOE showed a unique contribution to the explained variance in job
satisfaction across the three countries (the commonality coefficients again
vary substantially). For the three country samples different sets of two EI
dimensions (second-order commonality) contributed to the explained
variance (German sample: SEA and UOE; Indian sample: UOE and
ROE; U.S. sample: OEA and UOE). Two third-order commonalities
(SEA, OEA, and UOE as well as SEA, UOE, and ROE) contributed to
the explained variance across the three countries. The common effect of
all four EI dimensions contributed to the explained variance in job satis-
faction only for the Indian and the U.S. sample (with substantially differ-
ent commonality coefficients). Taken together, while the structure of
unique and common effects is comparable across the three countries, the
strength of unique and common effects and the total effect vary
across countries.
We conducted two robustness checks and examined the potential
influence of unoberserved heterogeneity and endogeneity on our main
findings. Following the approach proposed by Hair et al. (2016), the
results of finite mixture (FIMIX) analyses for the three samples and the
three outcomes suggests (1) two segments for job satisfaction for the
German and the Indian sample, (2) two segments for extra-role perform-
ance for the Indian sample, and (3) two segments for the Indian sample
as well as two to three segments for the U.S. sample for in-role perform-
ance. We conducted the regression analysis for the respective segments
32
Table 11. Results of regression analysis for job satisfaction.

C. SCHLAEGE ET AL.
Germany India U.S.

Variables Ml M2a M2b Ml M2a M2b Ml M2a M2b
Age .06 (.604) .08(.430) .05 (.654) .04 (.586) .03 (.667) .03 (.635) .01(.929) .05 (.593) .04 (.648)
Gender .04 (.525) .05(.428) .01 (.857) .10 (.114) .07 (.226) .07 (.201) .14 (.030) .10 (.102) .07 (.285)
Education .02 (.792) .01 (.881) .01 (.850) .05 (.457) .11 (.054) .10 (.061) .15 (.016) .14 (.015) .15 (.009)
Work experience .21(.051) .20 (.057) .18 (.090) .13 (.089) .07 (.312) .08 (.222) .02 (.840) .03 (.760) .03 (.710)
Work role .04 (.484) .03 (.603) .03 (.673) .17 (.008) .08 (.171) .06 (.272) .11(.094) .11 (.055) .09 (.142)
Overall EI .31 (.000) .47 (.000) .37 (.000)
Self-emotional appraisal .02 (835) .01 (.937) .10 (.279)
Others’ emotional appraisal .01 (.903) .04 (.635) .10 (.174)
Use of emotion .23 (.001) .39 (.000) .38 (.000)
Regulation of emotion .21(.002) .11 (.169) .05 (.516)
F 1.93 (.090) 6.96 (.000) 6.64 (.000) 3.77 (.003) 15.27 (.000) 11.43 (.000) 2.38 (.039) 9.01 (.000) 7.39 (.000)
R2 .03 .13 .16 .07 .27 .30 .04 .17 .21
D R2 (M1/M2a; M1/M2b) .10 (.000) .13 (.000) .20 (.000) .23 (.000) .13 (.000) .17 (.000)
A R2 (M2a/M2b) .03 (z ¼ 1.14; p ¼ .255) .03 (z ¼ 1.18; p ¼ .239) .04 (z ¼ 1.53; p ¼ .126)
R2 adjusted .02 .11 .14 .05 .26 .27 .03 .16 .18
N 285 285 285 251 251 251 263 263 263
Table 12. Results of commonality analysis for job satisfaction.

Germany India U.S.
Variables CC % Total CC % Total CC % Total
Unique effect
Self-emotional appraisal (SEA) .009 8 .000 0 .003 2
Others‘ emotional appraisal (OEA) .000 0 .001 1 .006 3
Use of emotion (UOE) .064 57 .059 22 .064 36
SEA & OEA .000 0 .000 0 .000 0
SEA & UOE .020 l8 .010 4 .002 1
SEA & ROE .003 3 .001 0 .001 0
OEA & UOE .000 0 .010 4 .022 l2
OEA & ROE .000 0 .002 1 .001 0
UOE & ROE .004 3 .0l8 7 .005 3
SEA & OEA & UOE .007 6 .0l6 6 .008 5
SEA & OEA & ROE .000 0 .002 1 .000 0
SEA & UOE & ROE .0l2 ll .026 9 .0l8 l0
OEA & UOE & ROE .000 0 .0l5 5 .006 4
SEA & OEA & UOE & ROE .003 3 .l07 39 .043 24
Total effect
and found support for our initial findings in the larger segments and
identified additional predictive EI dimensions in the smaller segments.
Given the limited sample size and the limited number of control varia-
bles we were not able to further investigate the main characteristics of
these segments. To assess the robustness of our results against the differ-
ent sources of endogeneity we used a Gaussian copula approach (Park &
Gupta, 2012). More specifically, we conducted all potential subset regres-
sion analysis and included the respective Copula variable(s) to assess
whether endogeneity influences the particular variable(s) and how this
bias affects our findings. Overall, the results suggest that while endogene-
ity is present for the German and the Indian samples, the bias does not
seriously influence estimates in our analysis and the main findings
remain robust.
Discussion
The main objective of the present study was to advance understanding
of EI by uncovering the structure and composition of the association
between the EI dimensions and job satisfaction as well as two job per-
formance facets and to compare the findings across three outcomes and
three samples from different countries. In answering our first exploratory
research question (What is the structure and relevance of unique and
common effects of EI dimensions for the three outcomes?) we revealed
the specific unique and common effects that contribute to the explained
variance in job satisfaction and the job performance facets. Our results
show that our novel approach extends the two existing empirical assess-
ment of EI, revealing the unique and common contribution of the EI
dimensions in explaining the three outcomes. In answering our second
exploratory research question (Do the structure and relevance of unique
and common effects vary across the three outcomes?) our findings reveal
that those unique and common effects that predict job satisfaction, in-
role performance, and extra-role performance often differ substantially in
their relevance and contribution to the explained variance. In answering
our third exploratory research question (Do the structure and relevance
of unique and common effects on the three outcomes vary across the
three countries?) our findings reveal that in general the structure of
unique and common effects of EI dimensions for the three outcomes is
comparable across countries (i.e. the same unique and common effects
explain an outcome in different countries) but the relevance of these
unique and common effects substantially varies across the three country
samples. The findings have several implications for theory and research
and offer avenues for further research.
Implications for theory and research

Our results have several implications for research. First, the theoretical
conceptualization of EI as a multidimensional construct (Mayer &
Salovey, 1995; Wong & Law, 2002) suggests that EI dimensions provide
both unique and common information. Therefore, neither the unidimen-
sional nor the multidimensional approach provides a complete under-
standing of the association of EI dimensions with work-related attitudes
and behaviors. We integrate and extend both approaches to overcome
their inherent limitations and advance and test a third approach that
accounts for unique effects of the individual EI dimensions and the com-
mon effects of sets of two or more EI dimensions. Our findings showed
that the four EI dimensions were differentially related to job satisfaction
and the job performance facets, providing support for the theoretical
conceptualization of EI as a multidimensional construct. The finding that
unique effects of individual EI dimensions as well as the effects of sets of
two and three EI dimensions account for a substantial amount of the
explained variance across outcomes and across country samples highlight
our point that this novel approach offers a more distinct and more pre-
cise understanding of EI effects and, this way, has the potential to
advance theory in future research.
Given that the majority of previous studies focused on overall EI and

the unidimensional approach, the empirical support for our approach is
theoretically important as it demonstrates the added value of the individ-
ual EI dimensions and the value of integrating and extending the unidi-
mensional and the multidimensional approach. A comparison of the
results across the different outcomes examined in this study suggests that
the relative importance of individual EI dimensions and sets of EI
dimensions may depend on the outcome. Observing substantial differen-
ces in unique and common effects and, therewith, in the structure and
relevance of these effects across job satisfaction and the two job perform-
ance facets supports recent calls for a more differentiated method of ana-
lysis for the rela-tion between EI dimensions and their outcomes (e.g.
Cherniss, 2010; Greenidge et al., 2014; Matthews et al., 2007). Unique
effects of individual EI dimensions explain significant parts of the vari-
ance in work outcomes, calling for a multidimensional approach that
acknowledges and disentangles the effects of the individual EI dimen-
sions. Common effects explain significant parts of variation in an out-
come and are often the most relevant component of EI in term of
predicting job satisfaction and job performance. Thus, a significant part
of the positive effect of increasing an EI dimension will only be realized
when one, two, or three other EI dimensions change accordingly.
Our analyses reveal the existence of not previously explicitly consid-
ered effects of two and three EI dimension sets that suggest an extension
of the two dominant conceptualizations of EI. A statistically significant
and practically relevant part of the explained variance in in-role perform-
ance can be attributed to the covariation between UOE and SEA; and a
relevant part of the explained variance in extra-role performance can be
attributed to the covariation between UOE and OEA. For job satisfaction
our results indicate that sets of three EI dimensions explain variance in
this outcome. In line with a mutualism perspective of intelligence, we
observe that variations in the ROE that are not aligned with variations in
the other EI dimensions (i.e. the unique contribution of ROE) do not
lead to higher performance and satisfaction.
Our findings also highlight the potential problems that may result from
differences in theorizing, testing, and interpreting the unique and common
effects of EI dimensions. Commonality analysis provides new insights into
the role of the individual EI dimensions. As our analyses reveal, the effects
for individual EI dimensions might differ depending on whether or not
researchers include the other EI dimensions, that is, whether they test
unique or overall effects (i.e. the unique effect plus the effect of all sets of
two and three EI dimension as well as the common effect of all four EI
dimensions). The difference between unique and common effects not only
needs to be considered when interpreting results of regression analysis and

SEM but also when theorizing about the effects of EI dimensions to ensure
a fit between theories and utilized empirical approach. For example, future
research should not hypothesize a positive association between ROE and job
satisfaction based on the consideration that this EI dimension is aligned
with SEA and OEA (i.e. theorizing about shared effects), and then test all
four EI dimensions’ unique effects on job satisfaction using a regression or
SEM analysis that simultaneously includes the other three EI dimensions.
Similarly, finding negative associations between an EI dimension and a
work outcome when controlling for the other EI dimensions should not be
taken as suggesting that this EI dimension hinders performance and satisfac-
tion. Rather, it can be concluded that this specific EI dimension, which is
not aligned with an increase in the other EI dimensions, hinders job per-
formance and job satisfaction. This finding might explain some of the
inconsistent find-ings in the EI literature.
In light of our findings, we recommend that researchers theorize on and
statistically examine EI based on the unique and common effects of the
individual EI dimensions based on commonality analysis. With free statis-
tical packages and free extensions for commercial packages readily available,
researchers can disentangle the complex interrelations of EI dimensions
with different outcomes. For researchers that decide to theorize at the level
of the overall construct (e.g. for reasons of parsimony) as minimum require-
ments we recommend to (a) report the correlations for all EI dimensions in
addi-tion to overall EI, (b) describe how overall EI was calculated (e.g. aver-
age of dimensions, average across items, etc.), and (c) to conduct a com-
monality analysis and report the results for the primary analysis for the
individual EI dimensions at least as robustness checks. The advantages of
commonality analysis a more detailed understanding of how EI dimensions
are associated with different outcomes need to be set against two limitations.
First, commonality analysis is limited in the number of variables that can be
effectively analyzed as the number of variance partitions increases rapidly as
additional predictor variables are considered. For example, if researches are
interested in the interplay of EI dimensions with another multidimensional
construct, such as cultural intelligence, the high number of common effects
complicates the interpretation of findings. Second, no statistical significance
test for commonalities is available. We used a bootstrapping approach
(5,000 replications) to calculate the 95% confidence intervals of commonal-
ity coefficients to evaluate the precision of the commonality coefficients. As
the unique effects cannot be less than 0, the confidence interval provides
information whether and to what degree the commonality coefficient of a
CQ dimensions extends into the negligible range.
Limitations and directions for future research

The results of our study should be interpreted in light of the following
limitations. First, our study is based on cross-sectional data from a single
respondent. While job satisfaction is an attitudinal measure that should
be answered by the respondent, in-role performance and extra-role per-
formance are measures that could be rated by the supervisor. We
encourage future research to use a longitudinal study design and to tri-
angulate self-reported and other-reported measures. A second limitation
of the study is that the data sets included in our study allow only a pre-
liminary comparison across countries. Future research should aim at cov-
ering more countries to allow a more comprehensive cross-country
comparison. Moreover, the three samples differ in the distribution of
gender, age, work role, and industry. Based on latent class analysis we
identified some degree of unobserved heterogeneity for the Indian and
the U.S. sample. Due to sample size limitations we were not able to
examine differences across segments within each sample. Therefore, we
echo Cherniss (2010) call for research to examine the role of context in
EI research. A third limitation is that while we were able to establish
measurement invariance across the three samples, the reliabilities for the
in-role performance and extra-role performance could be improved for
the German sample. Therefore, future research should use outcome
measures that have consistently proven their reliability in different
national contexts. Moreover, in our study we focused on three specific
consequences of EI. Prior research has shown that EI also determines
other work-related attitudes and behaviors (e.g. Harms & Crede, 2010;
Jordan & Troth, 2011). We encourage future research to decompose
unique and common effects of EI dimensions for other relevant out-
comes. Finally, given the exploratory nature of our study further research
is needed to permit the drawing of more specific practical implications.
Future research could examine which types of interventions are effective
and most efficient in the development of specific EI dimensions and
whether and to what degree mutual interrelations of EI dimensions also
play a role in the formation of this ability.
Despite these limitations, our study extends the understanding of the
interrelations between EI dimensions and the complex relationships
between EI dimensions and different work-related attitudes and behav-
iors in different national contexts. We hope that the present study may
be useful in paving the way toward a deeper understanding of unique
and common effects of EI dimensions and may stimulate researchers’
interest in this line of thinking and the methodology of commonal-
ity analysis.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Ashkanasy, N. M., & Daus, C. S. (2005). Rumors of the death of emotional intelligence
in organizational behavior are vastly exaggerated. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
26(4), 441–452. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.320
Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P., & Conley, S. C. (1991). Work-home conflict among
nurses and engineers: Mediating the impact of role stress on burnout and satisfaction
at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12(1), 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.
4030120104
Bohannon, J. (2016). Mechanical Turk upends social sciences. Science (New York, N.Y.),
352(6291), 1263–1264. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.352.6291.1263
Bowen, C. C., Swim, J. K., & Jacobs, R. R. (2000). Evaluating gender biases on actual job
performance of real people: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
30(10), 2194–2215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02432.x
Bozionelos, N., & Singh, S. K. (2017). The relationship of emotional intelligence with
task and contextual performance: More than it meets the linear eye. Personality and
Individual Differences, 116(1), 206–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.04.059
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oraland written material. In:
H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol.1, pp.
389–444). Allyn & Bacon.
Burton-Jones, A. (2009). Minimizing method bias through programmatic research. MIS
Quarterly, 33(3), 445–471.
Cherniss, C. (2010). Emotional intelligence: Toward clarification of a concept. Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, 3(2), 110–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.
2010.01231.x
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing
measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,
9(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
Cheung, J. H., Burns, D. K., Sinclair, R. R., & Sliter, M. (2017). Amazon Mechanical
Turk in organizational psychology: An evaluation and practical recommendations.
Journal of Business and Psychology, 32(4), 347–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-
016-9458-5
Conte, J. M. (2005). A review and critique of emotional intelligence measures. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 433–440. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.319
Devonish, D., & Greenidge, D. (2010). The effect of organizational justice on contextual
performance, counterproductive work behaviors, and task performance: Investigating
the moderating role of ability-based emotional intelligence. International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 18(1), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2010.00490.
x
Dobrow Riza, S., Ganzach, Y., & Liu, Y. (2018). Time and job satisfaction: A longitu-
dinal study of the differential roles of age and tenure. Journal of Management, 44(7),
2558–2579. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315624962
Dormann, C., & Zapf, D. (2001). Job satisfaction: A meta-analysis of stabilities. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 22(5), 483–504. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.98
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist,

41(10), 1040–1048. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1040
Elfenbein, H. A., & MacCann, C. (2017). A closer look at ability emotional intelligence
(EI): What are its component parts, and how do they relate to each other? Social and
Personality Psychology Compass, 11(7), e12324. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12324
Extremera, N., Quintana-Orts, C., Merida-Lopez, S., & Rey, L. (2018). Cyberbullying vic-
timization, self-esteem and suicidal ideation in adolescence: Does emotional intelli-
gence play a buffering role? Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 367https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2018.00367
Franke, G. R., & Richey, R. G. (2010). Improving generalizations from multi-country
comparisons in international business research. Journal of International Business
Studies, 41(8), 1275–1293. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2010.21
Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Erlbaum.
Goodman, J. K., Cryder, C. E., & Cheema, A. (2013). Data collection in a flat world:
The strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples. Journal of Behavioral
Decision Making, 26(3), 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1753
Greenidge, D., Devonish, D., & Alleyne, P. (2014). The relationship between ability-
based emotional intelligence and contextual performance and counterproductive work
behaviors: A test of the mediating effects of job satisfaction. Human Performance,
27(3), 225–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2014.913591
Grewal, R., Cote, J. A., & Baumgartner, H. (2004). Multicollinearity and measurement
error in structural equation models: Implications for theory testing. Marketing
Science, 23(4), 519–529. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1040.0070
G€ulery€uz, G., G€ € (2008). The mediating effect of job
uney, S., Aydın, E. M., & Aşan, O.
satisfaction between emotional intelligence and organisational commitment of nurses:
A questionnaire survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 45(11), 1625–1635.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2008.02.004
Gunkel, M., & Schlaegel, C. (2010). The influence of personality on students’ career
decisiveness—A comparison between Chinese and German economics and manage-
ment students. Management Revu, 21(3), 229–243. https://doi.org/10.5771/0935-9915-
2010-3-229
Gunkel, M., Schlaegel, C., & Taras, V. (2016). Cultural values, emotional intelligence,
and conflict handling styles: A global study. Journal of World Business, 51(4),
568–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2016.02.001
Gunkel, M., Schl€agel, C., & Engle, R. L. (2014). Culture’s influence on emotional intelli-
gence: An empirical study of nine countries. Journal of International Management,
20(2), 256–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2013.10.002
Guy, M. E., & Lee, H. J. (2015). How emotional intelligence mediates emotional labor in
public service jobs. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 35(3), 261–277. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0734371X13514095
Hair, J. F., Jr, Sarstedt, M., Matthews, L. M., & Ringle, C. M. (2016). Identifying and
treating unobserved heterogeneity with FIMIX-PLS: Part I–method. European Business
Review, 28(1), 63–76.
Harms, P. D., & Crede, M. (2010). Emotional intelligence and transformational and
transactional leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies, 17(1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051809350894
Harzing, A. W. (2006). Response styles in cross-national survey research: A 26-country
study. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 6(2), 243–266. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1470595806066332
Harzing, A. W., Reiche, B. S., & Pudelko, M. (2013). Challenges in international survey
research: A review with illustrations and suggested solutions for best practice.
European J. of International Management, 7(1), 112–134. https://doi.org/10.1504/EJIM.
2013.052090
Huang, X., Chan, S. C., Lam, W., & Nan, X. (2010). The joint effect of leader–member
exchange and emotional intelligence on burnout and work performance in call centers
in China. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(7),
1124–1144. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585191003783553
Huynh, A. C., Oakes, H., & Grossmann, I. (2018). The role of culture in understanding
and evaluating emotional intelligence. In K. V. Keefer, J. D. Parker, & D. H. Saklofske
(Eds.), Handbook of emotional intelligence in education (p. 111–132). Springer.
Janssen, O., & Van Yperen, N. W. (2004). Employees’ goal orientations, the quality of
leader-member exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction.
Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 368–384.
Jordan, P. J., Ashkanasy, N. M., & H€artel, C. E. (2003). The case for emotional intelli-
gence in organizational research. The Academy of Management Review, 28(2),
195–197. https://doi.org/10.2307/30040707
Jordan, P. J., Dasborough, M. T., Daus, C. S., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2010). A call to con-
text. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3(2), 145–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1754-9434.2010.01215.x
Jordan, P. J., & Troth, A. (2011). Emotional intelligence and leader member exchange:
The relationship with employee turnover intentions and job satisfaction. Leadership &
Organization Devel-Opment Journal, 32(3), 260–280.
Joseph, D. L., Jin, J., Newman, D. A., & O’Boyle, E. H. (2015). Why does self-reported
emotional intelligence predict job performance? A meta-analytic investigation of
mixed EI. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2), 298–342. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0037681
Joseph, D. L., & Newman, D. A. (2010). Emotional intelligence: An integrative meta-
analysis and cascading model. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 54–78.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017286
Kafetsios, K., Nezlek, J. B., & Vassiou, A. (2011). A multilevel analysis of relationships
between leaders’ and subordinates’ emotional intelligence and emotional outcomes.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(5), 1121–1144. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-
1816.2011.00750.x
Kafetsios, K., & Zampetakis, L. A. (2008). Emotional intelligence and job satisfaction:
Testing the mediatory role of positive and negative affect at work. Personality and
Individual Differences, 44(3), 712–722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.10.004
Kalnins, A. (2018). Multicollinearity: How common factors cause Type 1 errors in multi-
variate regression. Strategic Management Journal, 39(8), 2362–2385. https://doi.org/10.
1002/smj.2783
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. Wiley.
Khalid, J., Khaleel, M., Ali, A. J., & Islam, M. S. (2018). Multiple dimensions of emo-
tional intelligence and their impacts on organizational commitment and job perform-
ance. International Journal of Ethics and Systems, 34(2), 221–232. https://doi.org/10.
1108/IJOES-07-2017-0096
Kraha, A., Turner, H., Nimon, K., Zientek, L., & Henson, R. (2012). Tools to support
interpreting multiple regression in the face of multicollinearity. Frontiers in
Psychology, 3, 44. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00044
LaPalme, M. L., Wang, W., Joseph, D. L., Saklofske, D. H., & Yan, G. (2016).
Measurement equivalence of the Wong and law emotional intelligence scale across
cultures: An item response theory approach. Personality and Individual Differences,
90, 190–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.10.045
Law, K. S., Wong, C. S., Huang, G. H., & Li, X. (2008). The effects of emotional intelli-
gence on job performance and life satisfaction for the research and development sci-
entists in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 25(1), 51–69. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10490-007-9062-3
Law, K. S., Wong, C. S., & Song, L. J. (2004). The construct and criterion validity of
emotional intelligence and its potential utility for management studies. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 89(3), 483–496. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.483
Lee, H. J. (2018). How emotional intelligence relates to job satisfaction and burnout in
public service jobs. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 84(4), 729–745.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852316670489
Lee, Y. H., & Chelladurai, P. (2018). Emotional intelligence, emotional labor, coach
burnout, job satisfaction, and turnover intention in sport leadership. European Sport
Management Quarterly, 18(4), 393–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2017.
1406971
Libbrecht, N., Beuckelaer, A. D., Lievens, F., & Rockstuhl, T. (2014). Measurement
invariance of the Wong and law emotional intelligence scale scores: Does the meas-
urement structure hold across far Eastern and European countries? Applied
Psychology, 63(2), 223–237. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2012.00513.x
Locander, D. A., Mulki, J. P., & Weinberg, F. J. (2014). How do salespeople make deci-
sions? The role of emotions and deliberation on adaptive selling, and the moderating
role of intuition. Psychology & Marketing, 31(6), 387–403. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.
20702
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),
Handbook of industrial and organizational behavior (pp. 1297–1349). Rand McNally.
Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2007). Measuring emotional intelligence:
Promises, pitfalls, solutions. In A. D. Ong & M. vanDulmen (Eds.), Handbook of
methods in positive psychology (p. 189–204). Oxford University Press.
Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (2000). Selecting a measure of emotional intel-
ligence: The case for ability scales. In R. Bar-On & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), The hand-
book of emotional intelligence: Theory, development, assessment, and application at
home, school, and in the workplace (p. 320–342)
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1995). Emotional intelligence and the construction and regu-
lation of feelings. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 4(3), 197–208. https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0962-1849(05)80058-7
Meisler, G., & Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2014). Perceived organizational politics, emotional
intelligence and work outcomes: Empirical exploration of direct and indirect effects.
Personnel Review, 43(1), 116–135. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-02-2012-0040
Miao, C., Humphrey, R. H., & Qian, S. (2017). A meta-analysis of emotional intelligence
and work attitudes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 90(2),
177–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12167
Mood, A. M. (1969). Macro-analysis of the American educational system. Operations
Research, 17(5), 770–784. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.17.5.770
Mulki, J. P., Jaramillo, F., Goad, E. A., & Pesquera, M. R. (2015). Regulation of emo-
tions, interpersonal conflict, and job performance for salespeople. Journal of Business
Research, 68(3), 623–630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.08.009
Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2008). The relationship of age to ten dimensions of job
performance. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 392–423. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0021-9010.93.2.392
Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2009). How broadly does education contribute to job per-
formance? Personnel Psychology, 62(1), 89–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.
2008.01130.x
Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2010a). Organizational tenure and job performance.
Journal of Management, 36(5), 1220–1250. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309359809
Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2010b). The relationships of age with job attitudes: A
meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 63(3), 677–718. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-
6570.2010.01184.x
Nimon, K. (2011). Improving the quality of quantitative research reports: A call for
action. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22(4), 387–394. https://doi.org/10.
1002/hrdq.20091
Nimon, K., & Reio, T. G. Jr, (2011). Regression commonality analysis: A technique for
quantitative theory building. Human Resource Development Review, 10(3), 329–340.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484311411077
Nimon, K. F., & Oswald, F. L. (2013). Understanding the results of multiple linear
regression: Beyond standardized regression coefficients. Organizational Research
Methods, 16(4), 650–674. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428113493929
O’Boyle, E. H., Humphrey, R. H., Pollack, J. M., Hawver, T. H., & Story, P. A. (2011).
The relation between emotional intelligence and job performance: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(5), 788–818. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.714
Park, S., & Gupta, S. (2012). Handling endogenous regressors by joint estimation using
copulas. Marketing Science, 31(4), 567–586. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1120.0718
Pekaar, K. A., van der Linden, D., Bakker, A. B., & Born, M. P. (2017). Emotional intel-
ligence and job performance: The role of enactment and focus on others’ emotions.
Human Performance, 30(2-3), 135–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2017.1332630
Perez, J. C., Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2005). Measuring trait emotional intelli-
gence. In R. Schulze & R. D. Roberts (Eds.), International Handbook of Emotional
Intelligence. Hogrefe & Huber.
Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common
method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recom-
mended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Ronen, S., & Shenkar, O. (2013). Mapping world cultures: Cluster formation, sources
and implications. Journal of International Business Studies, 44(9), 867–897. https://doi.
org/10.1057/jibs.2013.42
Rousseau, D. M., & Fried, Y. (2001). Location, location, location: Contextualizing organ-
izational research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.
1002/job.78
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and
Personality, 9(3), 185–211. https://doi.org/10.2190/DUGG-P24E-52WK-6CDG
Schneider, W. J., & Newman, D. A. (2015). Intelligence is multidimensional: Theoretical
review and implications of specific cognitive abilities. Human Resource Management
Review, 25(1), 12–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2014.09.004
Schoen, J. L., DeSimone, J. A., & James, L. R. (2011). Exploring joint variance between
independent variables and a criterion: Meaning, effect, and size. Organizational
Research Methods, 14(4), 674–695. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428110381787
Seibold, D. R., & McPhee, R. D. (1979). Commonality analysis: A method for decompos-
ing explained variance in multiple regression analyses. Human Communication
Research, 5(4), 355–365. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1979.tb00649.x
Shamsuddin, N., & Rahman, R. A. (2014). The relationship between emotional intelli-
gence and job performance of call centre agents. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 129, 75–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.650
Shao, B., Doucet, L., & Caruso, D. R. (2015). Universality versus cultural specificity of
three emotion domains: Some evidence based on the cascading model of emotional
intelligence. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46(2), 229–251. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0022022114557479
Sinkovics, R. R., Richter, N. F., Ringle, C. M., & Schlaegel, C. (2016). A critical look at
the use of SEM in international business research. International Marketing Review,
33(3), 376–404.
Sun, P., Chen, J. J., & Jiang, H. (2017). Coping humor as a mediator between emotional
intelligence and job satisfaction: A study on Chinese primary school teachers. Journal
of Personnel Psychology, 16(3), 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000185
Sy, T., Tram, S., & O’Hara, L. A. (2006). Relation of employee and manager emotional
intelligence to job satisfaction and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(3),
461–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.10.003
Taras, V., Steel, P., & Kirkman, B. L. (2011). Three decades of research on national cul-
ture in the workplace: Do the differences still make a difference. Organizational
Dynamics, 40(3), 189–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2011.04.006
Trivellas, P., Gerogiannis, V., & Svarna, S. (2013). Exploring workplace implications of
Emotional Intelligence (WLEIS) in hospitals: Job satisfaction and turnover Intentions.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 73, 701–709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
sbspro.2013.02.108
Tsui, A. S. (2007). From homogenization to pluralism: International management
research in the academy and beyond. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6),
1353–1364. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.28166121
Tsui, A. S., Nifadkar, S. S., & Ou, A. Y. (2007). Cross-national, cross-cultural organiza-
tional behavior research: Advances, gaps, and recommendations. Journal of
Management, 33(3), 426–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307300818
Uslu, O., & Uslu, M. (2019). The impact of emotional intelligence on employees’ atti-
tudes. Journal of Applied Management and Investments, 8(1), 32–43.
Van Der Maas, H. L., Dolan, C. V., Grasman, R. P., Wicherts, J. M., Huizenga, H. M., &
Raijmakers, M. E. (2006). A dynamical model of general intelligence: The positive
manifold of intelligence by mutualism. Psychological Review, 113(4), 842–861. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.113.4.842
Van Rooy, D. L., & Viswesvaran, C. (2004). Emotional intelligence: A meta-analytic
investigation of predictive validity and nomological net. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 65(1), 71–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00076-9
Varela, O. E., & Landis, R. S. (2010). A general structure of job performance: Evidence
from two studies. Journal of business and psychology, 25(4), 625–638.
Varela, O. E., Salgado, E. I., & Lasio, M. V. (2010). The meaning of job performance in
collectivistic and high power distance cultures: Evidence from three Latin American
countries. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 17(4), 407–426.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13527601011086603
Whetten, D. A. (2009). An examination of the interface between context and theory

applied to the study of Chinese organizations. Management and Organization Review,
5(1), 29–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2008.00132.x
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commit-
ment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of
Management, 17(3), 601–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700305
Wong, C. S., & Law, K. S. (2002). The effects of leader and follower emotional intelli-
gence on performance and attitude: An exploratory study. The Leadership Quarterly,
13(3), 243–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00099-1
Yan, X., Yang, K., Su, J., Luo, Z., & Wen, Z. (2018). Mediating role of emotional intelli-
gence on the associations between core self-evaluations and job satisfaction, work
engagement as indices of work-related well-being. Current Psychology, 37(3), 552–558.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9531-2
Ybarra, O., Kross, E., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2014). The “big idea” that is yet to be:
Toward a more motivated, contextual, and dynamic model of emotional intelligence.
Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(2), 93–107. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.
2012.0106

The Unique and Common Effects of Emotional Intelli

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Unique and Common Effects of Emotional Intelli

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Unique and Common Effects of Emotional Intelli

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The International Journal of Human Resource

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rijh20

The unique and common effects of emotional

Christopher Schlaegel , Robert L. Engle & Guido Lang

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2020.1811368

© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa

Published online: 02 Sep 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

The unique and common effects of emotional

CONTACT Christopher Schlaegel c.schlagel@rug.nl Faculty of Economics and Management

Salovey, 1995, p. 197)—has been controversially discussed in the litera-

2018). Given the complex interrelations and correlations between EI

with different outcomes, enabling researchers to develop more accurate

Background and exploratory research questions

dominance of studies that used a unidimensional empirical approach

EI dimensions and job performance

performance facets are complex, leaving unresolved the importance of

EI dimensions and job satisfaction

individual EI dimensions uncovered. This is an important limitation as it

Decomposing the variance explained by EI dimensions in job satisfaction

Figure 1. Decomposition of the variance explained by dimensions of emotional intelligence

mean that a change in one EI dimension only influences an outcome if

Contextualizing the unique and common effects of EI dimensions

is the notion that different EI dimensions enable employees to appropri-

sets of specific EI dimensions may well explain additional variance in the

Recent conceptual work proposes that cultural values influence work-

explore the extent to which theoretical models have explanatory power in

physical location, which is inferred based on their Internet Protocol (IP)

Table 2. Summary of sample characteristics.

EI for use in organizational research. Prior studies also showed good

Common method variance, measurement model, and

Third, we pretested and pilot-tested the questionnaire to ensure the clar-

Table 3. Results of confirmatory factor analysis and multi-group confirmatory fac-

correlation of .49 identified in prior meta-analytic studies (Elfenbein &

The unique and common effects of EI dimensions on in-role performance

Table 7. Results of regression analysis for in-role performance.

Germany India U.S. Germany India U.S. Germany India U.S.

role-performance than overall EI for the Indian sample (þ4% points)

Table 8. Results of commonality analysis for in-role job performance.

The unique and common effects of EI dimensions on extra-role performance

Table 10. Results of commonality analysis for extra-role job performance.

dimensions explained significantly more variance in extra-role-perform-

The unique and common effects of EI dimensions on job satisfaction

Table 11. Results of regression analysis for job satisfaction.

Germany India U.S.

Table 12. Results of commonality analysis for job satisfaction.

Implications for theory and research

Given that the majority of previous studies focused on overall EI and

needs to be considered when interpreting results of regression analysis and

Limitations and directions for future research

Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist,

Whetten, D. A. (2009). An examination of the interface between context and theory

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.