Relationship Between Job Engagement And Organizational Performance; Moderator Effect Of Emotional Intelligence

Full text

The European Proceedings of
Social & Behavioural Sciences
EpSBS
Future Academy ISSN: 2357-1330
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0
Unported License, permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly cited.
http://dx.doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2017.12.02.25
ISMC 2017
13th International Strategic Management Conference
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JOB ENGAGEMENT AND
ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE; MODERATOR EFFECT OF
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
Cemal Zehir (a), Ahmet Üzmez (a)*, Mahmut Köle (a), Hacer Yıldız Öztürk (a),
* Corresponding author
(a) Yıldız Technical University, 34349, Istanbul, Turkey
Abstract
Employee satisfaction and emotional interaction are very important subjects for organizational
performance in today's working environment. In this research, the moderator effect of emotional intelligence
on the relationship between job engagement of employees and qualitative performances of organizations is
examined. The research data obtained from field study with the participation of 314 private sector employees
were analyzed using SPSS and AMOS package programs. As a result of testing research hypotheses with the
structural equality model (SEM), it has been stated that the emotional engagement and cognitive engagement
positively affects the qualitative performance of organizations. Moreover, it is observed that the emotional
intelligence of the employees has a moderator effect on the relationship between job engagement and
organizational performance. The results show that emotional engagement and cognitive engagement have
positive effects on organizational performance. Also, considering the gap in the literature, the moderator effect
is determined in the relationship between job engagement of emotional intelligence and qualitative
performance.
© 2017 Published by Future Academy www.FutureAcademy.org.uk
Keywords: Job Engagement, Emotional Intelligence, Organizational Performance.
1. Introduction
Performance, where the intensity of competition is constantly increasing, has become one of the
important parameters determining company performance in today's world. Organizational performance is also
affected by the relationship between the organization and their employees. The concept of job engagement that
is discussed in this context is also an explanation for the relationship between the organization and the

http://dx.doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2017.12.02.25
Corresponding Author: Ahmet Üzmez
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the conference
eISSN: 2357-1330
296
employee. In this context, the concept of job engagement is also an explanation for the relationship between
the organization and its employees.
In particular, although from 1990s, Khan (1990, 1992); Weick and Roberts (1993); Harter, Schmidt and
Hayes (2002); Schaufeli and Bakker, (2004) have made significant contribution on job engagement; Rich,
Lepine and Crawford (2010) have made one of the first studies that are addressing this issue empirically. Rich
et. al. (2010) aimed to reveal the relationship between job engagement and organizational factors together with
business performance by developing the theoretical framework done by Kahn (1990). For this reason we also
used this scale for our research, which was developed in the study of Rich et. al. (2010) and aimed at
explaining the relationship between job engagement and performance.
Even though the effects of job engagement on employee performance have been clearly demonstrated in
many studies in the literature (Halbesleben & Wheeler 2008; Bakker & Leiter 2010; Gruman & Saks 2011;
Christian, Garza, & Slaughter 2011; Bakker, Tims, & Derks 2012; Gabler, Rapp, & Richey 2014), there are
relatively few studies indicating this relationship together with the dimensions of job engagement. In this study
however, we aim to show the relationship between organizational performance and job engagement together
with the three dimensions of job engagement which are physical engagement, cognitive engagement, and
emotional engagement (Khan, 1990, 1992; Rich et al., 2010).
Emotional intelligence, which is another concept that constitutes the subject of our work, has the role of
increasing the power and intensity of this relationship and had been researched many times in management and
organizational behavior studies (Sudak & Zehir, 2013). The concept of emotional intelligence, which is defined
as the individual's own feelings and emotions, or the ability to reflect and distinguish the feelings and emotions
of others, and to use this knowledge in the dimension of thought and action (Salovey & Mayer, 1990); has been
analyzed together with the issues such as performance, productivity, leadership, organizational citizenship, job
satisfaction (Rosete & Ciarrochi, 2005; Cote & Miners, 2006; Kafetsios & Zampetakis, 2008; Dong, Seo, &
Bartol, 2014). However, the influence of employees' emotional intelligence on job engagement and
performance outcomes has not been examined in the literature on management and organizational behavior.
For this reason, the moderator effect of emotional intelligence on the relationship between job engagement and
organizational performance is examined in this paper.
2. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework
Individuals participate in organizations with their own self-perceptions, and within the organization
which is a social entity, they act and think with the influence of these self-perceptions (Dutton, Dukerich, and
Harquail, 1994). In the same way, taking place of individuals within different social groups such as race,
gender or team naturally develops as an extension of this self-perception (Breakwell, 1993). In other words,
individuals enter into the social groups together with the characteristics of their own selves, rather than being
abstracted from them. Organizations are also some sort of social groups in which people participate with their
self. According to Tompkins and Cheney’s (1985) definition of job engagement, which is amongst the first
definitions done in the literature, it is the perception of organizational engagement that individuals share their
success and failure with the organization, feel sense of belonging, and also as an individual or group within the
organization.

http://dx.doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2017.12.02.25
Corresponding Author: Ahmet Üzmez
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the conference
eISSN: 2357-1330
297
Kahn (1990) defines job engagement as a unique and important motivational factor that allows the
individual to give his/her physical (behavioral), cognitive, and emotional energy to the work he/she does.
Moreover, it is also defined as the level of attachment to the organizational characteristics of the content of
self-context (Tüzün and Çağlar, 2008). It is the positive, fulfilling state of mind, most commonly characterized
by vigor, dedication, and absorption (Halbesleben & Wheeler, 2008).
Through job engagement, employees tend to see themselves as a part of their organizations more and
see themselves as a representative of their organization against the external environment (Turunç and Çelik,
2010). Besides, Bakker et al. (2011) sees engagement of employees with their organizations as one of the
physical, psychological and organizational requirements of the business. Finally, organizational identification
can be summarized as the level of volunteerism in which employees in the work processes are physically and
emotionally engaged in business associations (Haynie, Mossholder, & Harris, 2016).
Efraty, Sirgy and Claiborne (1991), which is one of the studies in the literature on job engagement,
suggest that personal alienation has a negative influence on job engagement. Wegge et. al. (2006) state that
improvements in motivation and satisfaction at the workplace increase job engagement and productivity of
employees. According to Dick et. al. (2007), there is a significant relationship between leadership and
engagement, and leadership plays a key role in engagement of employees with their organization. According to
Knight and Haslam (2010), another study examining the job engagement of top management and employees;
the physical and psychological unhappiness that arises when job engagement is low is related to the attitude of
the management level. According to Fieseler et. al. (2015), job engagement changes according to the
demographic characteristics, and there is a positive relationship between organizational trust and job
engagement.
When we look at the relationship between job engagement and business performance, we see that
engagement and embedding each shared unique variance with in-role performance (Halbesleben and Wheeler,
2008). According to Bakker and Leiter (2010), there is a positive relationship between job engagement and
performance, just as in job satisfaction and psychological wellbeing.
According to Grumman and Saks (2011), there is a direct relationship between job engagement and job
performance. Moreover, engaged employees are likely to perform extra-role behaviors, perhaps because they
are able to “free up” resources by accomplishing goals and performing their tasks efficiently, enabling them to
pursue activities that are not part of their job descriptions (Christian et. al., 2011). In addition, according to the
findings of Bakker et. al.’s (2012) research on workers with proactive personality, proactive personality had a
positive relationship with in-role performance through job crafting and work engagement. According to Gabler
et. al. (2014), while job engagement increases sales performance, low job engagement leads to a decline in
sales performance. Finally, employee engagement have a significant impact on employee performance (Anitha,
2014).
2.1. Dimensions of Organizational Engagement
As seen in the studies mentioned above, job engagement concept has effect on the organizational and
employee performance. Kahn (1990) states that organizational engagement, which generally affects
performance positively, consists of behavioral (physical) engagement, cognitive engagement and emotional
engagement. According to Kahn’s study, job engagement is the physical, cognitive and emotional ties to all

http://dx.doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2017.12.02.25
Corresponding Author: Ahmet Üzmez
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the conference
eISSN: 2357-1330
298
other aspects of one's work in such a way as to make one's work better with his/her own will and effort. The
study providing a theoretical framework does not address the effect on organizational performance. Then Rich
at al. (2010) has contributed to the literature by considering the theoretical framework of the study with its
influence on performance. In this study, we aim to investigate which of the three dimensions of job
engagement affects performance.
If we take the dimensions that provide job engagement in order, physical engagement is the contribution
of people to the organization's physical assets and energy. Organizations initially expect behavioral roles from
their employees. The role of physical engagement is in increasing the physical effort of employees for a long
time and coming from the top of the work they do in the organization (Rich et. al., 2010). When employees
spend their physical energy to what they do in a motivated way, the expectations of organization from the
employees are being met. In the light of these context, the research question related to the physical engagement
is as follows:
H1a: There is a significant relationship between physical engagement of employees with their
organization and their organizational performance.
Another dimension of job engagement is cognitive engagement, where the individual contributes to the
organization's goals by doing the work carefully, prudently, with care and focus (Khan, 1990). Weick and
Roberts (1993) describe cognitive engagement as heedfulness, and state that cognitive energy is what shapes
employee's' behavior as heedfulness. Accordingly, the attention, cautiousness and focus required to perform a
job occurs with cognitive energy and spending of the individual's cognitive energy in the direction of the
organization's purpose occurs at the level of his/her cognitive identification. In this direction;
H2b: There is a significant relationship between cognitive engagement of employees with their organization
and their organizational performance.
The last dimension of job engagement is the emotional engagement. Emotional engagement requires
employees to spend their emotional energy for their business needs in order to achieve organizational goals.
The research question about this issue is:
H2c: There is a significant relationship between emotional engagement of employees with the organization
and organizational performance.
2.2. Emotional Intelligence
The concept of emotional intelligence is a popular concept for management, psychology, sociology,
educational science studies, although it started to take place in the literature in the 1990s. The basis of the
concept of emotional intelligence, used by Wayne Leon Payne in his PhD thesis for the first time in the
literature in 1985, can be attributed to the social intelligence model of Thorndike (1920). According to
Thorndike's model of social intelligence, the ability of individuals to understand and perceive the feelings of
others is a distinctive feature from general intelligence (Gürbüz and Yüksel, 2011). The concept was used as
the subject of a scientific study by the psychologists Salovey and Mayer (1990) in their study called
‘Emotional Intelligence’. The book was written by Daniel Goleman (1995) made the concept increasingly
foreground and made it known publicly. Also, the concept of emotional intelligence took place in business

http://dx.doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2017.12.02.25
Corresponding Author: Ahmet Üzmez
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the conference
eISSN: 2357-1330
299
world with the book called ‘Emotional Intelligence at Work’ by Goleman (1998), and has also been studied by
academicians working in this field.
Saloyev and Mayer (1990) describe emotional intelligence as “reflecting the individual's own or others’
feelings and emotions, distinguishing them from each other, and using this knowledge in the dimension of
thought and action”. On the other hand, Goleman (1998) describes emotional intelligence as the ability to sense
one's own feelings, to empathize others, and to adjust their emotions to enrich their life. Emotional intelligence
is also defined as “the personal, emotional and social competencies and skills that will help the person to
successfully cope with the pressure and demands of community” (Doğan & Şahin, 2007).
The concept of emotional intelligence, which has become increasingly popular since the mid-90s, has
been examined in terms of many different subjects such as leadership, performance, employee choice, job
satisfaction and conflict (Sudak and Zehir, 2013). From these studies, Cote and Miners (2006) examine the
impact of the emotional intelligence and cognitive intelligence concepts together on business performance.
According to the results of their research, there is a relationship between emotional intelligence and task-
oriented job performance, and this relationship also affects the behavior of organizational citizenship. Rosete
and Ciarrochi (2005) who studied the relationship between leadership and emotional intelligence, found a
positive relationship between effective leadership and emotional intelligence. Dong, et. al. (2014) investigated
the effect of emotional intelligence on the relationship between job performance and career progression or job
abandonment of executive candidates working in organizations. According to the research results; while there
is a positive relationship between the turnover rates of employees who have low emotional intelligence, there is
not such a relationship in the opposite way.
Emotional intelligence has been investigated in variety of context and areas from psychology to
sociology, from organizational behavior to management science. Many different scales have been developed to
measure emotional intelligence such as Mayer-Salovey (MSCEIT), Measurement of Emotional Intelligence
Model of Goleman (ECI), Dulewicz-Higgs Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (DHEIQ), Wong-Law
Emotional Intelligence Scales (WLEIS) (Oral, 2015). In our research we used the Wong-Law Emotional
Intelligence Scales (WLEIS), which is developed by Wong & Law (2002) with four dimensions in order to
investigate the regulatory role between organizational identification and business performance. The reason why
we choose this scale is because it is designed to be measure emotional intelligence and sub-dimensions with
relatively fewer questions than many emotional intelligence measures.
The first dimension of the four-dimensional WLEIS is self-emotional appraisal, relating to the ability to
understand and express one's feelings; the second dimension is others’ emotional appraisal, which is the
essential feature of the perceived and meaningful dimension of the people's emotions. The third dimension of
this scale is regulation of emotion, which is the ability to adjust and manage the emotions of the individuals.
Finally, the fourth dimension is the use of emotion and this dimension concerns the use of one's feelings in
constructive (positive) activities and in enhancing personal performance (Wong and Law, 2002).
The effects of this four-dimensional emotional intelligence on organizational performance are addressed
in the studies mentioned above. In this study, the density of the moderator role of emotional intelligence on the
relationship between job engagement and organizational performance is investigated. As a result of the
analysis of the relevant studies in the literature and theoretical framework;

http://dx.doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2017.12.02.25
Corresponding Author: Ahmet Üzmez
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the conference
eISSN: 2357-1330
300
H2a: There is a moderator effect of emotional intelligence between job engagement and organizational
performance; and as the emotional intelligence increases, the intensity of the relationship between job
engagement and organizational performance increases.
H2b: There is a moderator effect of emotional intelligence between physical engagement and organizational
performance, and as the emotional intelligence increases, the intensity of the relationship between physical
engagement and organizational performance increases.
H2c: There is a moderator effect of emotional intelligence between cognitive engagement and organizational
performance, and as the emotional intelligence increases, the intensity of the relationship between cognitive
engagement and organizational performance increases.
H2d: There is a moderator effect of emotional intelligence between emotional engagement and organizational
performance, and as the emotional intelligence increases, the intensity of the relationship between emotional
engagement and organizational performance increases.
3. Research Method
The questionnaire method was used to collect research data by face-to-face interactions. Exploratory
and confirmatory factor analyzes were carried out to determine whether scale validity and reliability analyzes
and questionnaires constituting the research scales form the predicted factor structure. Then the research model
and related hypotheses were tested with structural equation model. The total number of participants for this
study is 314 people who are working in organizations in different levels. Emotional intelligence scale was used
by KS Law, Wong and Song (2004) and job engagement scale belongs to Rich, Lepine and Crawford (2010)
and lastly organizational performance scale was used by Prieto and Revilla (2006).
Table 01. Demographic Information of the Participants
Title
Frequency
Valid Percent
Gender
Frequency
Valid Percent
Top Level
Manager
10
3,2
Male
168
55,3
Middle \
Bottom Level
Man.
43
13,8
Female
136
44,7
Specialist
126
40,5
Education
Frequency
Valid Percent
Sales
Representative
53
17,0
Secondary
Education
4
1,3
Other
79
25,4
High School
24
7,7
Age
Frequency
Valid Percent
Collage
23
7,4
Below 25
73
24,6
University
179
57,6
25-35
175
58,9
Master
79
25,4
35-45
44
14,8
PhD
2
,6
45 and more
5
1,7
Total
314
100

http://dx.doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2017.12.02.25
Corresponding Author: Ahmet Üzmez
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the conference
eISSN: 2357-1330
301
Our research model is shown below;
Figure 01. Research Model
3.1. Validity and Reliability of Factors
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) is applied to determine whether the theoretically predicted variables
making up the scales were separated into predicted factor components. Principal components analysis and
promax rotation methods are used in the exploratory factor analysis. For testing the suitability of the data set
for factor analysis; Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) sample adequacy test and Bartlett sphericity test were applied.
As a result of the analysis, it was found that the KMO value for this study is 0.923 which is above the
desired level of 0.50 and the Bartlett test is significant at 0.001 significance level. In addition, the diagonal
values in the anti-image correlation matrix are looked at and these values are found to be over 0.5 as it should
be. Accordingly, it has been found that sample data is suitable for the factor analysis.
In the exploratory factor analysis, the lower limit of factor loads was accepted as 0.5 considering the
sample size. The communality values of all variables are above 0.5. The Cronbach's Alpha value was used to
measure the internal consistency of the factors, and each factor exceeded Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.7.
Accordingly, it is revealed that the factor structures have internal consistencies.
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted using the Maximum Likelihood estimation method
to verify the results of the EFA, to analyze the validity and reliability of the research scales. Modification
indices are examined and error values with high modification value in the same factor are combined with
covariance. In this instance, the fit index values are examined as follow; X2/df = 1,886, GFI=0,838,
TLI=0,917, CFI=0,926, PNFI=0,768, RMSEA=0,053 (Hu and Bentler,1999; Schumacker and Lomax, 2012).
Convergence validity is obtained since all factor loads were statistically significant (Bagozzi, Yi, Lynn,
1991) and factor loadings were higher than 0.7 (Hair et al, 2010). In addition, unidimensionality (Anderson and
Gerbing, 1988) is also being provided because the goodness of fit indexes are at a good level.
Tablo 02. Factor Analysis
Construct
Indicator
Factor Loadings
Valididty and Reliability
Values
EFA
CFA
Self-Emotion Appraisal
a1
,923
0,83
Cronbach α; 0,884
a2
,874
0,856
SCR; 0,888
a3
,888
0,876
AVE; 0,667
a4
,653
0,693
Others Emotion Appraisal
a5
,686
0,742
Cronbach α; 0,836

http://dx.doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2017.12.02.25
Corresponding Author: Ahmet Üzmez
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the conference
eISSN: 2357-1330
302
a6
,833
0,824
SCR; 0,838
a7
,810
0,675
AVE; 0,565
a8
,795
0,758
Use of Emotion
a9
,661
0,704
Cronbach α; 0,805
a10
,897
0,588
SCR; 0,808
a11
,694
0,771
AVE; 0,517
a12
,721
0,794
Regulation of Emotion
a13
,810
0,688
Cronbach α; 0,823
a14
,655
0,795
SCR; 0,829
a15
,884
0,642
AVE; 0,550
a16
,813
0,827
Physical Engagement
b7
,504
0,708
Cronbach α; 0,869
b8
,878
0,718
SCR; 0,857
b9
,908
0,743
AVE; 0,546
b10
,550
0,772
b12
,679
0,752
Emotional Engagement
b13
,840
0,826
Cronbach α; 0,936
b14
,651
0,838
SCR; 0,936
b15
,727
0,83
AVE; 0,710
b16
,863
0,856
b17
,919
0,856
b18
,842
0,849
Cognitive Engagement
b19
,705
0,836
Cronbach α; 0,884
b20
,734
0,745
SCR; 0,888
b21
,802
0,801
AVE; 0,614
b22
,514
0,688
b23
,730
0,838
Performance
c1
,713
0,715
Cronbach α; 0,727
c2
,680
0,739
SCR; 0,727
c3
,792
0,732
AVE; 0,531
c4
,635
0,731
(i) Principal Component Analysis with Promax Rotation
(ii) KMO =0,923, Bartlett Test; p<0.001
(iii) Total Variance Explained (%); 69,819
(iv) All CFA trait is statistically significant at p < 0.001
X2/df = 1,886, GFI=0,838, TLI=0,917, CFI=0,926, PNFI=0,768, RMSEA=0,053
Average Variance Extracted (AVE) (Fornell and Larcker, 1981) and Scale Composite Relability (SCR)
(Bagozzi and Yi, 1988) values were used to test the reliability of the factor constructs. When AVE value is
greater than 0.5 and the CR value is greater than 0.7, it is possible to say that the relevant factor has validity
and reliability (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). The AVE and SCR values of research factors are given above.
Accordingly, the validity and reliability of the factors were found to be at the desired level. Correlations of
factor variables are given in Table 3. Accordingly, it is found that the interrelationships between the variables
are sufficient and statistically significant.

http://dx.doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2017.12.02.25
Corresponding Author: Ahmet Üzmez
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the conference
eISSN: 2357-1330
303
Table 03. Correlation Analysis
Constructs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1"
Use of emotion
1
2"
Emotional engagement
0,498
1
3"
Physical engagement
0,367
0,639
1
4"
Self-emotion appraisal
0,579
0,355
0,296
1
5"
Regulation of emotion
0,659
0,439
0,237
0,382
1
6"
Cognitive engagement
0,426
0,812
0,773
0,321
0,368
1
7"
Others emotion appraisal
0,568
0,402
0,261
0,672
0,477
0,355
1
8"
Performance
0,491
0,529
0,282
0,366
0,508
0,484
0,344
1
""
All correlations are statistically significant at p<0,001
3.2. Testing the Research Model
In this study, structural equation modeling is used to test hypotheses. The structural equation model
developed to investigate the effects of physical, emotional and cognitive engagement on organizational
performance is given below at Table 4. The fit values of the model are of the following form; Model 1 Fit;
X2/df = 2,018 GFI=0,890, TLI=0,931, CFI=0,943, PNFI=0,735, RMSEA=0,057 which are all at an acceptable
fit.
Table 04. Direct Relations
Models
IVs
Performance (DV)
Model 1
Physical Engagement
-0,245
Emotional Engagement
0,394**
Cognitive Engagement
0,357*
Control Variables
Age
-0,130*
Gender
-0,001
Education
-0,006
Title
-0,126*
Model 1 Fit; X2/df = 2,018 GFI=0,890, TLI=0,931, CFI=0,943, PNFI=0,735, RMSEA=0,057
Standardized coefficient are reported *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001
According to the results of Model 1; while physical engagement does not significantly affect
performance; emotional engagement (B = 0.394 p <0.01) and cognitive engagement (B = 0.357 p <0.05)
significantly affect organizational performance. For this reason, H1b and H1c were supported.
There are multiple methods of statistically presenting the existence of the moderator effects. In this
study, moderator variable effect is analyzed using multiple group comparisons and chi-square difference test
over the structural equation modeling infrastructure. This method has validity as they are used in many
management and organizational studies (Wagner, 2011; Jiménez-Jiménez and Sanz-Valle, 2011).
The results of the structural equation model which is designed to test the possible moderator effect of
emotional intelligence on the relationship between job engagement and performance are given below (Table 5).
It can be shown that in both models, the model fit values indicate an acceptable fit.

http://dx.doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2017.12.02.25
Corresponding Author: Ahmet Üzmez
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the conference
eISSN: 2357-1330
304
Table 05. Moderator Effect Analysis
Models
IVs
Performance
Chi square Difference Test
Low EQ
High EQ
Δχ2
Model 2
Job Engagement
0,383***
0,481***
3,22*
Control Variables
Age
-0,071
-0,237*
Gender
-0,025
0,041
Education
0,021
-0,004
Title
-0,033
-0,203*
Model 3
Physical Engagement
-0,254
-0,233
Emotional Engagement
0,265*
0,393**
6,76**
Cognitive Engagement
0,156
0,216
Control Variables
Age
-0,092
-0,213*
Gender
0,015
0,065
Education
0,022
0,017
Title
-0,020
-0,163
Model 2 Fit; X2/df = 1,662 GFI=0,830, TLI=0,904, CFI=0,917, PNFI=0,703, RMSEA=0,046
Model 3 Fit; X2/df = 1,651 GFI=0,839, TLI=0,905, CFI=0,922, PNFI=0,681, RMSEA=0,046
Standardized coefficient are reported *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001
Moderator; Emotional Intelligence
According to Model 2; in the case of moderator effect of emotional intelligence, there is a significant
differentiation between low and high levels of emotional intelligence on the effect of job engagement on
performance (bEQL; 0,383*** ® bEQH; 0,481*** ; Dc2; 3,22*). According to this findings, emotional
intelligence has a moderating effect on the relationship between job engagement and performance, so H2a is
supported.
Model 3 is created to understand from which job engagement sub-dimension creates the moderator
effect. According to the results, there is a significant differentiation between low and high emotional
intelligence levels only on the relationship between emotional engagement and performance (bEQL; 0,265***
® bEQH; 0,393***; Δχ2;6,76**). For this reason, while H2b and H2c are not supported, H2d is supported.
4. Conclusion and Discussions
The effect of job engagement on organizational performance is an undeniable fact today. There is a
relationship between the level of engagement with the organization and the energy which is spent by the
employees in a motivated way for the organizational purposes. The relationship between either organizational
performance and job engagement or job performance and organizational engagement is examined by Kahn
(1990, 1992), Rich et al. (2010), Halbesleben & Wheeler (2008), Bakker & Leiter (2010), Christian, Garza, &
Slaughter (2011) and Bakker, Tims, & Derks (2012) in the literature. The effect of the organizational
engagement on performance, which was developed by Khan (1990) in the theoretical context and which was
empirically tested by Rich et al. (2010), is examined in this study in a different way.

http://dx.doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2017.12.02.25
Corresponding Author: Ahmet Üzmez
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the conference
eISSN: 2357-1330
305
The results show that emotional engagement and cognitive engagement have positive effects on
organizational performance. Also, considering the gap in the literature, the moderator effect is investigated in
the relationship between job engagement of emotional intelligence and qualitative performance. As a result, it
is observed that emotional intelligence in relation to the job engagement and performance has an influence that
increases this power. When examining the sub-dimensions of job engagement, it is understood that the
emotional intelligence has a moderator role in the influence between emotional engagement and organizational
performance. From these findings, it has been shown that the professionals and managers need to manage their
employees’ emotional intelligence. Within this mind, it will also be beneficial for managers to give importance
not only to the analytical intelligence but also to the emotional intelligence functions in their organization;
because, the results of the study show that job engagement affects organizational performance more strongly in
employees with high emotional intelligence.
Performance measures are based on subjective perception, which is a limitation for the study. The use
of objective performance measures are recommended in the future studies. Also, there are some shortages for
generalization because the study has a cross-sectional study area. In order to overcome this deficiency, it will
be useful to carry out studies involving employees from different sectors and longitudinal studies. Research on
the role of different individual and organizational elements (cultural intelligence, organizational support,
leadership etc.) in the relationship between job engagement and performance is a recommendation that will
contribute to the development of the literature.
References
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and
recommended two-step approach. Psychological bulletin, 103(3), 411.
Anitha, J. (2014). Determinants of employee engagement and their impact on employee performance.
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 308-323.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the academy of
marketing science, 16(1), 74-94.
Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. (1991). Assessing construct validity in organizational research.
Administrative science quarterly, 421-458.
Bakker, A. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2010). Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research.
Psychology Press.
Bakker, A. B., Tims, M., & Derks, D. (2012). Proactive personality and job performance: The role of job
crafting and work engagement. Human relations, 65(10), 1359-1378.
Bakker, A., Albrecht, S., & Leiter, M. (2011). Key questions regarding work engagement. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 4-28.
Breakwell, G. M. (1993). Social representations and social identity. Papers on social representations, 198-217.
Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of
its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 89-136.
Cote, S., & Miners, C. T. (2006). Emotional intelligence, cognitive intelligence, and job performance.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(1), 1-28.
Dick, R., Hirst, G., Grojean, M. W., & Wieseke, J. (2007). Relationships between leader and follower
organizational identification and implications for follower attitudes and behaviour. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80(1), 133-150.
Doğan, S., & Şahin, F. (2007). Duygusal zekâ: tarihsel gelişimi ve örgütler için önemine kavramsal bir bakış.
Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 16(1).

http://dx.doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2017.12.02.25
Corresponding Author: Ahmet Üzmez
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the conference
eISSN: 2357-1330
306
Dong, Y., Seo, M.-G., & Bartol, K. M. (2014). No pain, no gain: An affect-based model of developmental job
experience and the buffering effects of emotional intelligence. Academy of Management Journal, 57(4),
1056-1077.
Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and member identification.
Administrative science quarterly, 239-263.
Efraty, D., Sirgy, M., & Claiborne, C. (1991). The effects of personal alienation on organizational
identification: a quality-of-work-life model. Journal of Business and Psychology, 57-78.
Fieseler, C., Meckel, M., & Ranzini, G. (2015). Professional PersonaeHow Organizational Identification
Shapes Online Identity in the Workplace. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, 153-170.
Gabler, C. B., Rapp, A., & Richey, R. G. (2014). The effect of environmental orientation on salesperson effort
and participation: the moderating role of organizational identification. Journal of Personal Selling &
Sales Management, 34(3), 173-187.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence. Bantam Books. Michigan University.
Goleman, D. (1998). Working with Emotional Intelligence. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Gruman, J. A., & Saks, A. M. (2011). Performance management and employee engagement. Human Resource
Management Review, 21(2), 123-136.
Gürbüz, S., & Yüksel, M. (2011). Çalışma ortamında duygusal zekâ: İş performansı, iş tatmini, örgütsel
vatandaşlık davranışı ve bazı demografik özelliklerle ilişkisi. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 9(2), 174-190.
Hair, J. F. J., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis Seventh Edition
Prentice Hall.
Halbesleben, J. R., & Wheeler, A. R. (2008). The relative roles of engagement and embeddedness in predicting
job performance and intention to leave. Work & Stress, 22(3), 242-256.
Haynie, J., Mossholder, K., & Harris, S. G. (2016). Justice and job engagement: The role of senior
management trust. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 889–910.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional
criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), 1-55.
Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2011). Innovation, organizational learning, and performance. Journal
of business research, 64(4), 408-417.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy
of management journal, 33(4), 692-724.
Knight, C., & Haslam, S. A. (2010). The relative merits of lean, enriched, and empowered offices: an
experimental examination of the impact of workspace management strategies on well-being and
productivity. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 158.
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.
Oral, T. (2015). Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi . Duygusal Zeka - Çalışan Performansı İlişkisi: Bir Saha
Araştırması. İstanbul: Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
Prieto, I. M., & Revilla, E. (2006). Learning capability and business performance: a non-financial and financial
assessment. The Learning Organization, 13(2), 166-185.
Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job
performance. Academy of management journal, 53(3), 617-635.
Rosete, D., & Ciarrochi, J. (2005). Emotional intelligence and its relationship to workplace performance
outcomes of leadership effectiveness. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(5), 388-399.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and
engagement: A multisample study. Journal of organizational Behavior, 25(3), 293-315.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, cognition and personality , 185-211.
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2012). A Beginner's Guide to Structural Equation Modeling. Routledge.
Sudak, M. K., & Zehir, C. (2013). Types of Personality, Emotional Intelligence, With a Study on the
Relationship Between Job Satisfaction. Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi Yönetim Bilimleri
Dergisi, 141-166.
Turunç, Ö., & Çelik, M. (2010). Algılanan Örgütsel Desteğin Çalışanların İş-Aile, Aile-İş Çatışması, Örgütsel
Özdeşleşme ve İşten Ayrılma Niyetine Etkisi: Savunma Sektöründe Bir Araştırma. Atatürk Üniversitesi
Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 14(1).

http://dx.doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2017.12.02.25
Corresponding Author: Ahmet Üzmez
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the conference
eISSN: 2357-1330
307
Tüzün, İ. K., & Çağlar, İ. (2008). Örgütsel Özdeşleşme Kavramı ve İletişim Etkinliği İlişkisi. Journal of Yaşar
University, 3(9), 1011-1027.
Wagner, M. (2011). Corporate performance implications of extended stakeholder management: New insights
on mediation and moderation effects.Ecological Economics, 70(5), 942-950.
Wegge, J., Dick, R. V., Fisher, G. K., Wecking, C., & Moltzen, K. (2006). Work motivation, organisational
identification, and well-being in call centre work. Work & Stress, 20(1), 60-83.
Weick, K. E., & Roberts, K. H. (1993). Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks.
Administrative science quarterly, 357-381.
Wong, C.-S., & Law, K. S. (2002). The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence on performance
and attitude: An exploratory study. The leadership quarterly, 13(3), 243-274.