Previous Article in Journal
Back to Industry—Evaluating Women’s Return to Chartered Accreditation Post-Maternity in the Built Environment Sector Professions
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Administrative Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 9
10.3390/admsci14090205
admsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Employees’ Emotional Intelligence and Job Satisfaction: The Mediating Role of Work Climate and Job Stress

by
Álvaro García del Castillo-López
1,* and
María Pérez Domínguez
2
1
Department of Health Psychology, Miguel Hernández University, 03202 Elche, Spain
2
Independent Researcher, 03202 Elche, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Adm. Sci. 2024, 14(9), 205; https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14090205 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 23 July 2024 / Revised: 22 August 2024 / Accepted: 23 August 2024 / Published: 3 September 2024
(This article belongs to the Topic Employee Quality of Life, Well-Being and Wellness: A Pathway to Organizational Performance, Efficiency, and Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
(1) Background: This study examines the mediating roles of work climate and perceived job stress on the relationship between emotional intelligence (EI) and job satisfaction using a serial mediation model in a sample of employees. Although EI is known to influence several organizational outcomes, its interaction with work climate and job stress is less well understood. (2) Methods: The PROCESS macro (Model 6) v4.2 by Hayes was employed to test the multiple mediating effects of work climate and perceived job stress on the relationship between emotional intelligence and job satisfaction. (3) Results: The results indicate that higher EI is associated with a more positive work climate, higher job satisfaction, and lower perceived job stress. Work climate and job stress mediate the relationship between EI and job satisfaction. Specifically, EI improves job satisfaction both directly and indirectly by increasing positive work climate and decreasing job stress. (4) Conclusions: These findings highlight the critical role of EI in creating a supportive work environment and improving employee well-being.

1. Introduction

The study of emotional intelligence has been the subject of a considerable amount of research in recent years. According to Mayer et al. (1999), emotional intelligence is defined as the ability to identify, evaluate, and differentiate one’s own emotions from those of others, to use them in decision making, to understand them, and to regulate positive and negative emotions in oneself and in others.
This interest in emotional intelligence also extends to the organizational environment. Within the organizational environment, there are several factors that influence organizational success, whether individual (job performance, leadership style, conflict resolution style, job satisfaction, motivation) or organizational (organizational climate, organizational justice, compensation received). Nevertheless, emotional intelligence is presented as a much more effective predictor of success than these variables, and from here derives the importance of its study (Moral and Ganzo 2018; cited in Cherniss and Goleman 2001; Solano 2013).
In general, according to García (2012), a higher level of emotional intelligence in organizations has been associated with important benefits such as higher employee productivity, higher sales, greater employee stability, lower turnover, and higher job satisfaction, among other variables. Several studies confirm a direct positive relationship between emotional intelligence and job satisfaction or find that emotional intelligence is a predictor of job satisfaction, which in turn has implications for people’s satisfaction with their lives in general (De la Cruz-Portilla 2020; Ulutaş Deniz et al. 2024; Moral and Ganzo 2018; Soriano-Vázquez et al. 2023). In this context, job satisfaction is defined as the set of attitudes an individual develops toward his or her work situation and can refer to work in general or to specific facets of work (Bravo et al. 1996). In addition, not only has a relationship between emotional intelligence and job satisfaction been identified, but there is also evidence of a direct relationship between emotional intelligence and work climate or job stress. Regarding the relationship between emotional intelligence and job stress, Sy et al. (2006) concluded that employees with higher levels of emotional intelligence had lower levels of emotional stress, which positively affected their job satisfaction. Other studies also found a relationship between higher levels of emotional intelligence and lower levels of perceived job stress, establishing a direct negative relationship (Tirado-Vides et al. 2020; Wan et al. 2014). Regarding the relationship between emotional intelligence and work climate, studies such as those by De Pelekais et al. (2006) and Tirado-Vides et al. (2020) state that higher levels of emotional intelligence are associated with a better work climate, finding a direct and positive relationship.
On the one hand, job stress is related to people’s ability to adapt to and cope with external demands and the physical and psychological reactions that result. On the other hand, work or organizational climate refers to workers’ perceptions and evaluations of the structural aspects (processes and procedures) and the relationships between people and the physical environment (infrastructure and work elements) (Osorio and Cárdenas 2017; Tirado-Vides et al. 2020). It should be noted that in addition to the relationships between emotional intelligence and job satisfaction, perceived job stress, and work climate, these last three variables also interact with each other. For example, there is evidence of a direct negative relationship between climate and perceived job stress, in that the more positive the work climate, the lower the job stress scores. This is reflected in studies such as Jentsch et al. (2023), Rivai et al. (2019), and Tirado-Vides et al. (2020). In fact, in addition to finding a direct relationship between climate and job stress, Rivai et al. (2019) also show indirect effects of emotional intelligence and work climate on employee productivity through the effect on job stress.
Regarding the work climate and job satisfaction, according to Dávila-Morán (2023), Jentsch et al. (2023), Kagan et al. (2021), and Sari et al. (2020), these variables are positively and directly related, since the more positive the work climate, the higher the level of job satisfaction is found. Similarly, several authors find a direct and negative relationship between perceived job stress and job satisfaction, as the higher the level of perceived job stress, the lower the level of job satisfaction found (Cheng et al. 2015).
In line with the aforementioned studies, in the study of Sandroto and Fransiska (2021), which aimed to test whether emotional intelligence influences job stress and job satisfaction of employees, they found that the relationship between stress and job satisfaction was mediated by emotional intelligence, so that emotional intelligence could strengthen the relationship between stress and job satisfaction. Another study that also proposes a mediational model is that of Rustamov et al. (2023), in which it was found that job stress acted as a mediator in the relationship between emotional intelligence and job satisfaction of the teachers participating in the study.

Present Study

After reviewing the literature and related existing work, no study was found that conducted a mediational analysis including the four variables mentioned (emotional intelligence, job satisfaction, perceived job stress, and work climate). The closest work is that of Rustamov et al. (2023), which includes three of the four variables, with work climate being the missing variable. Therefore, given the importance of these variables in the organizational environment and their relationship with both organizational success and employee well-being, a mediational model with the four variables is proposed.
Thus, the purpose of this study was to test whether the relationship between emotional intelligence and job satisfaction can be mediated by work climate and perceived job stress by proposing a mediation model as shown in Figure 1.
As seen, a positive work climate is associated with higher job satisfaction. Employees with high emotional intelligence are more likely to perceive and contribute to a positive work climate due to their ability to manage emotions, resolve conflicts, and foster collaborative relationships (Wong and Law 2002). Higher emotional intelligence is associated with more positive work attitudes, better performance, and higher job satisfaction (Carmeli 2003), and is also positively related to job satisfaction and negatively related to stress levels in the workplace (Sy et al. 2006). In addition, high levels of stress are generally associated with lower levels of job satisfaction (Spector 1997; Stanton et al. 2001). Individuals with high emotional intelligence tend to use more adaptive coping strategies, which can reduce the perceived impact of stress and improve overall well-being (Salovey et al. 1999). Studies that have analyzed the correlations between variables show that emotional intelligence is positively correlated with job satisfaction and negatively correlated with job stress (Zeidner et al. 2004). Therefore, based on this evidence, the following hypotheses were proposed.
H1. 
Work climate and perceived job stress serially mediate the relationship between emotional intelligence and job satisfaction.
H2. 
Emotional intelligence will correlate significantly and positively with work climate and job satisfaction, and significantly and negatively with perceived job stress.
H3. 
Work climate will correlate significantly and positively with job satisfaction and negatively with perceived job stress.
H4. 
Perceived job stress will significantly and negatively correlate with job satisfaction.

2. Methods

2.1. Design and Procedure

A cross-sectional observational study was conducted using the survey method. The sampling technique used initially was convenience sampling, recruiting volunteers through announcements on social networking sites and asking them to share the link to the questionnaire on Google Forms with family and friends, using snowball sampling (Emerson 2015). Data collection was carried out during the months of March, April, and May 2024. All participants had to be of legal age and have worked or completed an internship at some point in their lives. In addition, they had to agree to access the online form, otherwise it would not be opened. The research was approved by the Office of Responsible Research of the Miguel Hernández University. Subjects participated voluntarily and without compensation.

2.2. Participants

The final sample consisted of a total of 203 participants, of whom 106 were male and 97 were female, representing 52.2% and 47.8%, respectively. The mean age of the sample was 33.22 years (SD = 11.38). The minimum age of the participants was 18 years, and the maximum age was 65 years. Of the sample, 79.8% were employed in the service and/or technical-manipulative sector, while 20.2% of the sample were employed in the care sector. In terms of working conditions, 49.3% had a permanent contract, 54.7% worked between 31 and 40 h per week, and 44.8% had been in their position for 1 year or less.

2.3. Instruments

An ad hoc interview was designed to collect socio-demographic information.
In order to assess the stress perceived by the participants, the Job Stress Survey (JSS) of Spielberger and Vagg (Spielberger and Vagg 2010), in the Spanish adaptation was administered (Spielberger and Vagg 2010). Specifically, it assesses the Job Stress Index (JSX) by combining the perceived severity (JSS) and frequency (JSF) with which each of the 30 stressful events presented in the statements (30 items) occurs, with a 9-point Likert-type scale from “1 = low” to “9 = high” in the case of perceived severity, compared to a standard stressor, and 10 points from “0 = 0 days” to “9 = 9 or more days” in the case of frequency of stressful events. This scale has items such as: “Colleagues not doing their job”. The perceived stress index score is obtained by multiplying the perceived severity score and the frequency score. In the present study, it obtained a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.953.
The evaluation of the variable job satisfaction was carried out using the Meliá and Peiró (1989) Satisfaction Questionnaire S20/23, which consists of 23 items with a 7-point Likert scale, where “1 = very dissatisfied” and “7 = very satisfied”. The minimum score of the scale is 23 and the maximum is 161. Some of the items on the scale are described as: “The ability to decide autonomously aspects related to their work”. It contains five subscales that refer to satisfaction with supervision, physical environment, benefits received, intrinsic satisfaction with the job itself, and satisfaction with participation. In the present study, this scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.940.
The Trait Meta-Mood Scale (TMMS-24) (Salovey et al. 1995), in its version adapted to the Spanish population (Fernández-Berrocal et al. 2004), was used to assess emotional intelligence. It consists of 24 items with a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “1 = strongly disagree” to “5 = strongly agree”. The minimum score of this scale is 24 and the maximum is 120. It contains three subscales: Emotional Attention (being able to feel and express feelings appropriately), Emotional Clarity (understanding emotional states), and Emotional Repair (being able to regulate emotional states appropriately). Each subscale has cut-off points that vary by gender. It includes questions such as “I usually spend time thinking about my feelings”. As for its internal consistency, assessed by Cronbach’s Alpha, in the present study it was 0.928.
Finally, the Organizational Climate Scale (EDCO) developed by Acero et al. (1999) was used to assess the work climate. The test consists of a 40-item scale that measures aspects such as interpersonal relationships, management style, compensation, sense of belonging, availability of resources, stability, clarity and coherence in management, and collective values. It is based on a Likert-type scale with scores ranging from “1 = Never” to “5 = Always”, where this score is changed in the corresponding inverted items. The minimum score for this scale is 40 and the maximum is 200. In terms of cut-off points, a score between 40 and 93 would be considered low, between 94 and 147 would be considered medium, and between 148 and 200 would be considered high. It refers to questions such as “I am accepted by my work group”. In the present study, a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.920 was found.

2.4. Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows software version 29.0.0.0.0 (241). First, the reliability of the scales used was analyzed using Cronbach’s alpha statistic. Basic descriptive statistics such as frequencies, percentages, means, standard deviations, and minimum and maximum values were used to describe the sample. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to analyze the relationships between the variables. The multiple mediating effects of work climate and perceived stress on the relationship between emotional intelligence and job satisfaction were analyzed using the PROCESS macro (Model 6) v4.2. (Hayes 2018). A bootstrapping analysis with 10,000 resamples was performed to test the significance of mediation effects. A significance level of 95% was used. The significance of direct, indirect, and total effects was analyzed considering 95% confidence intervals without including zero. As recommended by Schoemann et al. (2017), for complex analytic methods such as mediation models, a Monte Carlo simulation approach was used to calculate the statistical power of the model as a function of sample size and model type. The application proposed by the authors, written in R, was used. For the statistical power of the direct effects of the predictor variable, R2 was used. Finally, the Student’s t-test for independent samples was used together with the Cohen’s d effect size statistic (between 0.2 and 0.3 indicates a small effect size, around 0.5 indicates a medium effect size, and above 0.8 indicates a large effect size) to analyze categorical variables with two levels (sex, divided into male and female, and type of sector to which the job belongs, divided into care sector and service or manipulative technical sector) and a quantitative variable (scores on the scales used).

3. Results

Table 1 shows the distribution of the sample according to the socio-demographic variables extracted from the ad hoc interview designed: gender, year of birth, level of education, whether they are currently working or not, sector of the position they work in, type of employment contract, number of hours worked per week, and length of service in months.
Table 2 shows the mean and standard deviation of the emotional intelligence, work climate, perceived job stress and job satisfaction scores, and the Pearson’s correlation test.
After performing the Pearson’s correlation test, it can be observed that emotional intelligence correlates significantly and positively with work climate (r = 0.234; p = 0.001) and with job satisfaction (r = 0.331; p < 0.001), with a weak association in the first case and a moderate association in the second. It is considered that H2 would be only partially confirmed, since despite finding a significant relationship of emotional intelligence with work climate and job satisfaction, no significant negative relationship is found between emotional intelligence and perceived job stress.
Regarding work climate, it correlates significantly and negatively with perceived job stress (r = −0.462; p < 0.001) and significantly and positively with job satisfaction (r = 0.736; p < 0.001). A moderate association is found in the case of job stress and a strong association in the case of job satisfaction. Therefore, hypothesis H3 is supported.
Finally, perceived job stress was significantly and negatively correlated with job satisfaction (r = −0.421; p < 0.001). This relationship is considered moderate. Thus, hypothesis H4 is supported. Regarding the results of the Student’s t-test for independent samples performed between gender and job sector with the scores of emotional intelligence, satisfaction, work climate, and work stress, no significant results were found.
Regarding the mediation analysis, first the unstandardized values were obtained: emotional intelligence has a significant effect on work climate (b = 0.3122, t = 3.4051, p < 0.001); emotional intelligence has a significant effect on job stress (b = 0.1167, t = 2.2979, p < 0.05); job climate has a significant effect on job stress (b = −0.2960, t = −7.7916, p < 0.001); emotional intelligence has a significant effect on job satisfaction (b = 0.0123, t = 3.9518, p < 0.001); job climate has a significant effect on job satisfaction (b = 0.0307, t = 11.6976, p < 0.001); job stress has a significant effect on job satisfaction (b = −0.0112, t = −2.6136, p < 0.001).
As can be seen in Table 3, there is a mediation effect because all the indirect effects are significant. It is a partial mediation because the direct effect is also significant, which means that part of the effect goes through the indirect effect (EI → WC → PJS → JS) and another part goes directly between emotional intelligence and job satisfaction. Since all the relationships are not positive, it is a competitive type of mediation.
After assessing the effect of work climate and perceived job stress as serial mediators of the relationship between emotional intelligence and job satisfaction, the results show a significant indirect effect of emotional intelligence on job satisfaction through work climate and perceived stress (b = 0.0010, p < 0.001) with a strong, justifying the existence of a serial mediation of climate and stress in the relationship between emotional intelligence and satisfaction and confirming H1.
Emotional intelligence has a significant effect on the mediating variable of work climate (b = 0.234, p = 0.001) with good model fit (F = 11.595, p = 0.000) and statistical power of 23.35% (R2 = 0.233), on the mediating variable of perceived stress (b = 0.146, p = 0.023), with good fit (F = 30.476, p = 0.000) and statistical power of 48.33% (R2 = 0.483), and on the dependent variable of job satisfaction (b = 0.189, p = 0.000), with good fit (F = 92.691, p = 0.000) and statistical power of 76.35% (R2 = 0.764).

Hypotheses Summary and Final Model

Once all the analyses have been carried out, here is a summary of the hypotheses initially proposed, together with the resolution obtained.
H1. 
Work climate and perceived job stress serially mediate the relationship between emotional intelligence and job satisfaction.
This hypothesis is supported.
H2. 
Emotional intelligence will correlate significantly and positively with work climate and job satisfaction, and significantly and negatively with perceived job stress.
This hypothesis is partially supported. There is a significant relationship between emotional intelligence, work climate and job satisfaction, but there is no significant negative relationship between emotional intelligence and perceived job stress.
H3. 
Work climate will correlate significantly and positively with job satisfaction and negatively with perceived job stress.
This hypothesis is supported; a moderate association is found in the case of job stress and a strong association in the case of job satisfaction.
H4. 
Perceived job stress will significantly and negatively correlate with job satisfaction.
This hypothesis is supported; a moderate association is found.
Finally, the model of the mediating effects between emotional intelligence, work climate, perceived job stress, and job satisfaction is presented (Figure 2).

4. Discussion

The purpose of the current study was to examine the mediating effects of work climate and perceived job stress on the relationship between emotional intelligence and job satisfaction. The results provide important insights into how these variables interact within organizational settings, and several key points emerge from the analysis.
Firstly, the results underscore the pivotal role of emotional intelligence in enhancing both work climate and job satisfaction. Employees with higher emotional intelligence tend to foster a more positive work climate, which in turn leads to greater job satisfaction. This finding is consistent with previous studies that have highlighted the importance of emotional intelligence in workplace settings. For instance, studies by De Pelekais et al. (2006) and Tirado-Vides et al. (2020) have shown that higher levels of emotional intelligence are associated with a better work climate, which subsequently enhances job satisfaction. Furthermore, research by Cherniss and Goleman (2001) supports the idea that emotional intelligence is a critical factor in predicting organizational success and employee well-being. In this sense, the results of this study contribute to the evidence on the importance of emotional intelligence in work environments, given that the higher the emotional intelligence of workers, the better and more positive work environments and working conditions we find (Ashkanasy and Daus 2005; Carmeli 2003; Lopes et al. 2003; Sy et al. 2006; Wong and Law 2002).
The study also shows that perceived job stress significantly mediates the relationship between emotional intelligence and job satisfaction. Specifically, higher emotional intelligence leads to lower perceived job stress, which then contributes to higher job satisfaction. This finding is consistent with existing literature suggesting that emotional intelligence can mitigate the negative effects of job stress. For example Sy et al. (2006), and Wan et al. (2014) all reported that higher emotional intelligence is associated with lower job stress. Furthermore, the study by Rustamov et al. (pp. 20–23) found similar mediating effects of job stress in different occupational contexts, reinforcing the robustness of these findings across different work settings.
Interestingly, the study did not find a significant direct relationship between emotional intelligence and perceived job stress, which contradicts some previous findings. This discrepancy may be due to sample differences or contextual factors unique to the setting of the current study. It suggests that while emotional intelligence positively influences job satisfaction and work climate, its direct effect on job stress could be more complex and warrants further investigation. Previous research by Bar-On (2000) and Mayer et al. (1999) also suggested that the influence of emotional intelligence on stress might be moderated by other factors such as coping strategies and organizational support.
Furthermore, the significant negative relationship between perceived job stress and job satisfaction highlights the detrimental effect of stress on employees’ overall job satisfaction. This finding is supported by Cheng et al. (2015) who found that higher levels of job stress were associated with lower levels of job satisfaction. These findings highlight the importance of addressing job stress in organizational interventions to maintain and improve job satisfaction.
The partial and competitive nature of the mediation indicates that both direct and indirect pathways exist between emotional intelligence and job satisfaction, with work climate and job stress playing crucial mediating roles. This competitive mediation indicates the presence of both positive and negative relationships, suggesting that while a good work climate and low job stress enhance job satisfaction, other unexamined factors also likely influence these dynamics. For example, research by Daus and Ashkanasy (2005) suggests that organizational culture and leadership styles further mediate or moderate these relationships.
These findings have important implications for organizational practice. First, the promotion of emotional intelligence through training and development programs could be a strategic approach to improve the work climate and to enhance job satisfaction. Organizations should consider incorporating emotional intelligence assessments and interventions as part of their employee development initiatives to significantly improve workplace outcomes (Bradberry and Greaves 2009; Goleman 2001). Second, addressing job stress through comprehensive stress management programs is critical. Employers can implement measures such as workload management, support systems, and wellness programs to help employees manage stress effectively. By doing so, organizations can mitigate the negative impact of job stress on job satisfaction and overall employee well-being (Cartwright and Cooper 1997; Lazarus and Folkman 1984).

5. Conclusions

The present research presents a comprehensive examination of the mediating roles of work climate and perceived job stress in the relationship between emotional intelligence and job satisfaction. The results of this study underscore the critical importance of emotional intelligence in facilitating a positive work environment and enhancing job satisfaction. Specifically, employees with higher emotional intelligence tend to create a more supportive and constructive work climate, which in turn contributes to greater job satisfaction.
Results also show that perceived job stress plays a significant mediating role. Higher emotional intelligence leads to lower perceived job stress, which subsequently increases job satisfaction. This highlights the complex interaction between these variables and suggests that emotional intelligence can attenuate the negative effects of job stress and promote a healthier work environment.

6. Limitations and Future Research Directions

Given the limitations of the current study, future research should aim to include larger and more representative samples to increase the generalizability of the findings. The use of probabilistic sampling methods could provide a more accurate representation of the broader population. In addition, future studies should consider examining other organizational variables, such as leadership styles, organizational justice, and compensation structures, to provide a more comprehensive analysis of the factors that influence job satisfaction. Further research is also needed to examine the direct relationship between emotional intelligence and job stress. Understanding the contextual factors and potential moderators that influence this relationship could provide valuable insights for developing targeted interventions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Á.G.d.C.-L. and M.P.D.; methodology, Á.G.d.C.-L.; validation, Á.G.d.C.-L. and M.P.D.; formal analysis, Á.G.d.C.-L.; investigation, M.P.D.; resources, M.P.D.; data curation, M.P.D.; writing—original draft preparation, M.P.D.; writing—review and editing, Á.G.d.C.-L.; visualization, Á.G.d.C.-L.; supervision, Á.G.d.C.-L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Research Ethics and Integrity Committee of the Miguel Hernández University, Spain (TFM.MGR.AGDCL.MPD.240208 27/02/2024) for studies involving humans.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The dataset presented in this study can be found at: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/KEX3C.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Acero, Yusset, Lina Echeverri, Sandra Lizarazo, Ana Quevedo, and Bibiana Sanabria. 1999. Escala de Clima Organizacional (EDCO). Bogotá: Fundación Universitaria Konrad Lorenz. [Google Scholar]
  2. Ashkanasy, Neal M., and Catherine S. Daus. 2005. Rumors of the Death of Emotional Intelligence in Organizational Behavior Are Vastly Exaggerated. Journal of Organizational Behavior 26: 441–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bar-On, Reuven. 2000. Emotional and Social Intelligence: Insights from the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i). In Handbook of Emotional Intelligence. Edited by Reuven Bar-On and James Parker. Hoboken: Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bradberry, Travis, and Jean Greaves. 2009. Emotional Intelligence 2.0. San Diego: TalentSmart. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bravo, María Jesús, José María Peiró, and Isabel Rodríguez. 1996. Satisfacción laboral. In Tratado de Psicología del Trabajo, 1. La Actividad Laboral en su Contexto. Edited by José María Peiró and Fernando Prieto. Madrid: Síntesis, pp. 343–94. [Google Scholar]
  6. Carmeli, Abraham. 2003. The Relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Work Attitudes, Behavior and Outcomes: An Examination among Senior Managers. Journal of Managerial Psychology 18: 788–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Cartwright, Susan, and Cary L. Cooper. 1997. Managing Workplace Stress. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  8. Cheng, Ching-Yu, Shwu-Ru Liou, Hsiu-Min Tsai, and Chia-Hao Chang. 2015. Job Stress and Job Satisfaction among New Graduate Nurses during the First Year of Employment in Taiwan. International Journal of Nursing Practice 21: 410–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Cherniss, Cary, and Daniel Goleman. 2001. The Emotionally Intelligent Workplace: How to Select For, Measure, and Improve Emotional Intelligence in Individuals, Groups, and Organizations. Hoboken: Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar]
  10. Daus, Catherine S., and Neal M. Ashkanasy. 2005. The Case for the Ability-based Model of Emotional Intelligence in Organizational Behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior 26: 453–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Dávila-Morán, Roberto Carlos. 2023. Clima laboral y satisfacción laboral en trabajadores de una empresa de servicios de Trujillo, Perú. Universidad y Sociedad 15: 286–95. [Google Scholar]
  12. De la Cruz-Portilla, Andrea Camila. 2020. Influencia de La Inteligencia Emocional Sobre La Satisfacción Laboral: Revisión de Estudios. Revista UNIMAR 38: 63–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. De Pelakis, Cira, Ángel Nava, and Luis Tirado. 2006. Inteligencia Emocional y Su Influencia En El Clima Organizacional En Los Niveles Gerenciales Medios de Las PYMES. Telos: Revista De Estudios Interdisciplinarios En Ciencias Sociales 8: 266–88. [Google Scholar]
  14. Emerson, Robert Wall. 2015. Convenience Sampling, Random Sampling, and Snowball Sampling: How Does Sampling Affect the Validity of Research? Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness 109: 164–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Fernández-Berrocal, Pablo, Natalio Extremera, and Natalia Ramos. 2004. Validity and Reliability of the Spanish Modified Version of the Trait Meta-Mood Scale. Psychological Reports 94: 751–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. García, Virginia. 2012. La Motivación Laboral, Estudio Descriptivo de Algunas Variables. Trabajo Fin de Grado, Valladolid: Universidad de Valladolid. Available online: http://uvadoc.uva.es/handle/10324/1144 (accessed on 1 May 2024).
  17. Goleman, Daniel. 2001. An EI-Based Theory of Performance. In The Emotionally Intelligent Workplace: How to Select for, Measure, and Improve Emotional Intelligence in Individuals, Groups, and Organizations. Edited by Cary Cherniss and Daniel Goleman. Hoboken: Jossey-Bass, pp. 27–44. [Google Scholar]
  18. Hayes, Andrew F. 2018. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, 2nd ed. Methodology in the Social Sciences. New York: Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  19. Jentsch, Armin, Frances Hoferichter, Sigrid Blömeke, Johannes König, and Gabriele Kaiser. 2023. Investigating Teachers’ Job Satisfaction, Stress and Working Environment: The Roles of Self-efficacy and School Leadership. Psychology in the Schools 60: 679–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kagan, Ilya, Tova Hendel, and Bella Savitsky. 2021. Personal Initiative and Work Environment as Predictors of Job Satisfaction among Nurses: Cross-Sectional Study. BMC Nursing 20: 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Lazarus, Richard S., and Susan Folkman. 1984. Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  22. Lopes, Paulo N., Peter Salovey, and Rebecca Straus. 2003. Emotional Intelligence, Personality, and the Perceived Quality of Social Relationships. Personality and Individual Differences 35: 641–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Mayer, John D., David R. Caruso, and Peter Salovey. 1999. Emotional Intelligence Meets Traditional Standards for an Intelligence. Intelligence 27: 267–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Meliá, Josep L., and José María Peiró. 1989. La Medida de La Satisfacción Laboral En Los Contextos Organizacionales. El Cuestionario de Satisfacción S20/23. Psicologemas 5: 59–74. [Google Scholar]
  25. Moral, María de la Villa, and Sergio Ganzo. 2018. Influencia de La Inteligencia Emocional En La Satisfacción Laboral En Trabajadores Españoles. Psicología Desde El Caribe 351: 18–32. [Google Scholar]
  26. Osorio, Julieth Estefanía, and Lucila Cárdenas Niño. 2017. Estrés Laboral: Estudio de Revisión. Diversitas 13: 81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Rivai, Nasrijul, Erni Masdupi, and Syahrizal Syahrizal. 2019. Effect of Emotional Intelligence, Work Environment, and Work Stress on Work Productivity. In Proceedings of the 2nd Padang International Conference on Education, Economics, Business and Accounting (PICEEBA-2 2018). Padang: Atlantis Press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Rustamov, Elnur, Ulviyya Nahmatova, Matanat Aliyeva, Gulay Mammadzada, and Fuad Asadov. 2023. The Impact of Emotional Intelligence on Teachers’ JobSatisfaction: Mediating Role of Psychological Distress. International Journal of Educational Sciences 41: 53–61. [Google Scholar]
  29. Salovey, Peter, Brian T. Bedell, Jerusha B. Detweiler, and John D. Mayer. 1999. Coping Intelligently: Emotional Intelligence and the Coping Process. In Coping: The Psychology of What Works. Edited by Charles R. Snyder. New York: Oxford Academic, pp. 141–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Salovey, Peter, John D. Mayer, Susan Lee Goldman, Carolyn Turvey, and Tibor P. Palfai. 1995. Emotional Attention, Clarity, and Repair: Exploring Emotional Intelligence Using the Trait Meta-Mood Scale. In Emotion, Disclosure, & Health. Edited by James W. Pennebaker. Washington: American Psychological Association, pp. 125–54. [Google Scholar]
  31. Sari, Meida, Yasri, and Abror. 2020. The Effect of Work Environment and Job Burnout on Job Satisfaction With Perceived Organization Support as Moderating to Employees at the Secretariat Staff of the Regional Parliament of West Sumatra Province. In Proceedings of the 5th Padang International Conference On Economics Education, Economics, Business and Management, Accounting and Entrepreneurship (PICEEBA-5 2020). Padang: Atlantis Press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Schoemann, Alexander M., Aaron J. Boulton, and Stephen D. Short. 2017. Determining Power and Sample Size for Simple and Complex Mediation Models. Social Psychological and Personality Science 8: 379–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Solano, Ángela. 2013. Inteligencia Emocional En El Trabajo: Sus Implicaciones y El Rol de La Psicología Laboral. Humanitas 10: 201–2014. [Google Scholar]
  34. Soriano-Vázquez, Iris, Mayela Cajachagua Castro, and Wilter C. Morales-García. 2023. Emotional Intelligence as a Predictor of Job Satisfaction: The Mediating Role of Conflict Management in Nurses. Frontiers in Public Health 11: 1249020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Spector, Paul E. 1997. Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Causes, and Consequences. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  36. Spielberger, Charles D., and Peter R. Vagg. 2010. JSS. Cuestionario de Estrés Laboral (Adaptación Española: Carlos Catalina Romero). Madrid: TEA Ediciones. [Google Scholar]
  37. Stanton, Jeffrey M., William K. Balzer, Patricia C. Smith, Luis Fernando Parra, and Gail Ironson. 2001. A General Measure of Work Stress: The Stress in General Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement 61: 866–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Sy, Thomas, Susanna Tram, and Linda A. O’Hara. 2006. Relation of Employee and Manager Emotional Intelligence to Job Satisfaction and Performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior 68: 461–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Tirado-Vides, María Margarita, Lorena Cudris-Torres, Miladys Paola Redondo-Marín, and Luz Karine Jiménez-Ruiz. 2020. Inteligencia Emocional, Clima Organizacional y Estrés Ocupacional En Profesionales Que Prestan Servicios En Primera Infancia. Clío América 14: 441–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ulutaş Deniz, Elif, Rumeysa Eren, and Dildar Alaf. 2024. Evaluating the Influence of Emotional Intelligence on Job Satisfaction Among Pharmacists. Journal of Research in Pharmacy 28: 197–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Wan, Howe Chern, Luke A. Downey, and Con Stough. 2014. Understanding Non-Work Presenteeism: Relationships between Emotional Intelligence, Boredom, Procrastination and Job Stress. Personality and Individual Differences 65: 86–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Sandroto, Christine Winstinindah, and Jessica Fransiska. 2021. The Importance of Emotional Intelligence for the Sales Associates Profession as a Mediation between Job Stress and Job Satisfaction. International Journal of Management and Economics 57: 331–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Wong, Chi-Sum, and Kenneth S Law. 2002. The Effects of Leader and Follower Emotional Intelligence on Performance and Attitude. The Leadership Quarterly 13: 243–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Zeidner, Moshe, Gerald Matthews, and Richard D. Roberts. 2004. Emotional Intelligence in the Workplace: A Critical Review. Applied Psychology 53: 371–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Admsci 14 00205 g001
Figure 1. Conceptual model.
Figure 1. Conceptual model.
Admsci 14 00205 g001
Admsci 14 00205 g002
Figure 2. Model of mediating effects between variables. Solid lines represent significant relationships. Dashed lines represent non-significant relationships. Standardized values of the coefficients of the direct effects between variables are shown. Note: X = Independent variable, Y = Dependent variable, M1 = Mediator 1, M2 = Mediator 2, e1 = Total effect of X–Y.
Figure 2. Model of mediating effects between variables. Solid lines represent significant relationships. Dashed lines represent non-significant relationships. Standardized values of the coefficients of the direct effects between variables are shown. Note: X = Independent variable, Y = Dependent variable, M1 = Mediator 1, M2 = Mediator 2, e1 = Total effect of X–Y.
Admsci 14 00205 g002
Table 1. Sample sociodemographics.
Table 1. Sample sociodemographics.
Variable N (%)
SexMan106 (52.2)
Woman97 (47.8)
AgeFrom 18 to 30 years old111 (54.7)
From 31 to 45 years old61 (30)
From 46 to 65 years old31 (15.3)
Level of educationNo education3 (1.5)
Primary school or equivalent14 (6.9)
General secondary education, 1st cycle10 (4.9)
General secondary education, 2nd cycle17 (8.4)
2nd grade vocational education, 2nd cycle9 (4.4)
Higher professional education41 (20.2)
University studies or equivalent109 (53.7)
Are you currently employed?Yes166 (81.8)
No37 (18.2)
Note. N = 203.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of the variables and correlations.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of the variables and correlations.
M (SD)r (p)
1234
1. EmotionalIntelligence77.92 (17.39)-
2. Work Climate142.68 (23.25)0.234-
3. Perceived Job Stress20.70 (13.87)0.030−0.462-
4. Job Satisfaction4.63 (1.13)0.3310.736−0.421-
Note. Significant values in bold. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table 3. Direct, indirect, and total effects of mediation.
Table 3. Direct, indirect, and total effects of mediation.
bS.E.t95% C.I.
DEEI → JS0.1890.0033.9520.006, 0.018
IE EI → WC → JS0.1470.0443.0970.063, 0.238
EI → PJS → JS−0.0200.013−1.444−0.049, 0.002
EI → WC → PJS → JS0.0160.0091.6670.001, 0.035
TE EI → JS0.3310.0044.9770.012, 0.030
Note. Standardized values of b are shown. DE = Direct effect X–Y, IE = Indirect effect X–Y, TE = Total effect X–Y, EI = Emotional Intelligence, JS = Job Satisfaction, WC = Work Climate, PJS = Perceived Job Stress.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

García del Castillo-López, Á.; Pérez Domínguez, M. Employees’ Emotional Intelligence and Job Satisfaction: The Mediating Role of Work Climate and Job Stress. Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, 205. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14090205

AMA Style

García del Castillo-López Á, Pérez Domínguez M. Employees’ Emotional Intelligence and Job Satisfaction: The Mediating Role of Work Climate and Job Stress. Administrative Sciences. 2024; 14(9):205. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14090205

Chicago/Turabian Style

García del Castillo-López, Álvaro, and María Pérez Domínguez. 2024. "Employees’ Emotional Intelligence and Job Satisfaction: The Mediating Role of Work Climate and Job Stress" Administrative Sciences 14, no. 9: 205. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14090205

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Article metric data becomes available approximately 24 hours after publication online.
Back to TopTop