Exploring the Mediating Role of Organizational Justice (OJ) in the Relationship between Emotional Intelligence (EI) and Job Performance Among Primary Healthcare Employees
Gugulothu Sravanthi
Full-time Research Scholar,
GITAM Deemed to be University, Hyderabad
ORCID: 0009-0005-0450-8164
Dr.K.Sreekanth
Assistant Professor,
GITAM Deemed to be University, Hyderabad
ORCID: 0009-0000-9565-6923
Dr. R.Seethalakshmi
Associate Professor,
ICFAI Business School, Bengaluru
IFHE Hyderabad Offshore campus,
seethalakshmiramu01@gmail.com,
ORCID: 0000-0002-4227-3985
Abstract
This research explores the “Mediating Role of Organizational Justice in the Relationship Between Emotional Intelligence and Job Performance Among Primary Health Care Employees.” Combining Affective Events Theory (AET) and Social Exchange Theory (SET), the study investigates how views of justice:distributive (DJ), procedural (PJ), and interactional justice (IJ)mediate the effect of EI on JP. EI, OJ, and JP were measured using established measures in a self-administered survey. Results show that EI, via OJ, both directly and indirectly modulates JP. Organizational Justice was explicitly shown to moderate the EI-EJP link considerably. The underlying results show the need to develop emotional intelligence and guarantee organizational justice to improve employee performance in demanding healthcare surroundings. Practical consequences include encouraging fair corporate policies and EI training programs to maximize staff results.
Keywords: Emotional Intelligence (EI), Organizational Justice (OJ), Employee Job Performance (EJP), Primary Healthcare, Social Exchange Theory (SET), Affective Events Theory(AET), Nursing Staff.
Introduction
In today's dynamic organizational landscape, the importance of encouraging great work performance cannot be emphasized in today's dynamic organizational scene. Realizing that human capital is a great advantage, businesses continually look for ways to maximize staff efficiency and production. “Emotional intelligence (EI), the ability to perceive, comprehend, and control one's emotions and those of others, has become important for judging how effectively one's work progresses (Goleman, 1995).”
EI's role in enhancing interpersonal relations, decision-making, and stress management positions it as a key factor in improving workplace outcomes. However, the mechanisms through which EI influences job performance are complex and multifaceted, necessitating further exploration.
Background of the Study
In modern healthcare,emotional intelligence (EI) in determining job performance has gained significant scholarly attention (Côté, 2022). Primary healthcare settings require employees to navigate emotionally charged interactions while maintaining professional efficacy. Emotional intelligence—the capacity to properly comprehend, control, recognize, and use emotionshas been connected to better work performance using improved communication, decision-making, and stress management (Salovey & Mayer, 1990; Boyatzis, 2018). The degree to which, therefore, organizational justice (OJ) mediates that connection remains underexplored.
OJ, referring to personnel's perceptions of fair-mindedness in the workplace, encompasses distributive, procedural, and interactional justice dimensions (Colquitt et al., 2019). Healthcare workers’ perceptions of justice significantly impact their motivation, commitment, and job performance (Moorman, 2021). Despite broadresearch on the individual possessions of EI and organizational justice (OJ), the underlying mediating mechanisms require further empirical validation, particularly in primary healthcare settings (Greenberg, 2020).
Emotional Intelligence (EI)
Emotional Intelligence (EI) encompasses an individual’s capacity to accurately perceive, monitor, and interpret emotional cues in oneself and others. It involves discerning various affective states and strategically using this emotional insight to inform thinking, behavior, and overall functioning (Mayer & Salovey, 1990; Goleman, 1995; Joseph & Newman, 2010; Boyatzis, 2009). As a multifaceted construct, EI integrates intrapersonal awareness, emotional self-regulation, behavioral self-discipline, cognitive adaptability, goal-directed motivation, and a constructive, forward-looking mindset (Boyatzis, 2009).People with high emotional intelligence often show an improved ability to negotiate daily obstacles and a more polished awareness of their emotional moods. More precisely, when used effectively, emotional intelligence development benefits many spheres of life skills. The core life skills are the ability to negotiate complex social situations, the mastery of stress management, and the capacity for success across many spheres, including interpersonal relationships, family dynamics, academic environments, and professional settings (Bar-On, 1997, 2000; Fitness, 2001; Flury & Ickes, 2001; Goleman, 1998; Liptak, 2005).
Within this conceptual framework or model, emotional intelligence (EI) is theorized as a foundational precursor that shapes perceptions of organizational justice and facilitates elevated levels of job performance. Individuals exhibiting heightened emotional acumen are better equipped to interpret and manage interpersonal interactions in the workplace, thereby fostering equitable practices and contributing to more effective professional outcomes (Mayer & Salovey, 1997).People with high emotional intelligence believe they can guide and manage their feelings in a way that produces excellent mental health. They also think their feelings are relevant to them. They are more likely to be subjective and happy (Petrides & Furnham, 2003).
Trait of Emotional Intelligence (EI)
“Mayer & Salovey (1997) defined EI as the ability to accurately perceive, appraise, and express emotion; the ability to access and generate feelings when they facilitate thought; the ability to understand emotion and emotional knowledge; and the ability to regulate emotions to promote emotional and intellectual growth”. Wong & Law (2002) divided these abilities into four categories: emotional evaluation, control, self-emotional appraisal, and emotional application.
As Miao et al. (2017) say, EI foresees good views at work and shows gradual variation and relative value in the cognitive ability of an emotional trait.
Organizational Justice
Conceptually, thoughts about organizational justice are those of the degree to which a company gives its staff members suitable, fair, and courteous treatment, sufficient and correct information, tools, and incentives (Ambrose & Schminke, 2009; Bell, Wiechmann, & Ryan, 2006; Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001; Cropanzano, Prehar, & Chen, 2002; Tyler & Bies, 1990; Tziner& Chernyak-Hai, 2012).
Hollensbe, Khazanchi, and Masterson (2008) say employees view organizational justice in two different ways:
(a) general impressions derived from random events inside the company and
(b) individual assessments based on particular “organizational components,” such as leaders and colleagues, Colquitt et al., 2001; Cropanzano et al., 2002; Folger &Cropanzano, 1998; Kernan & Hanges, 2002; Moorman, 1991; Niehoff & Moorman, 1993. This study sought to see if people's success at work and overall impressions of justice were correlated.
“Organizational justice” refers to employeesperceptions of fairmindedness in work practices and interactions; usually, perceptions of organizational justice break out into:
The mediating role of OJ in this model highlights its importance as a bridge between EI and EJP. Employees who perceive organizational fairness will likely exhibit higher motivation and better job performance (Colquitt et al., 2001).
Distributive Justice (DJ)
It concerns the policies that should be used to distribute society's resources and determine the equitable allocation of the costs and benefits of social cooperation among individuals with different demands and claims. Regarding the impartiality of worker results, for example, wages and promotions, distributive justice seeks to ensure that it questions opinions of justice regarding organizational outputs and distribution (Adam, 1965). Based on comparisons, perceptions of distributive fairness are reflected (Greenberg, 1987). Workers in the office will probably use several points of reference for comparison (Tremblay & Roussel, 2001), including one to colleagues within the same organization, workers holding comparable roles in other organizations, and staff members carrying out similar duties inside the same firm. An individual's performance is significantly influenced by their salary and perception of what they should be paid (Robbins et al., 2012).
Procedural justice (PJ)
PJ is the impression of impartiality of the procedures used to decide organizational results (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson & Porter, 2001; Folger &Konovsky, 1989). It is characterized as equity of the means of reward distribution (Robbins et al., 2012). The main components of procedural justice are process management and explanations. While explanations are obvious reasons management provides for the results, progression control is the chance to express one's point of view regarding intended outcomes to decision-makers (Robbins et al., 2012). Leventhal, Karuza, and Fry (1980) examine procedural justice's fairness through the six justice norms-correctness, representativeness, bias suppression, consistency, ethicality, and correctability. Those who influence judgments based on methods deemed fair are more inclined to accept them than those who influence decisions resulting from unfair procedures (Cropanzano& Greenberg, 1997).
Interactional Justice
Interactional justice is the personal view of dignity, care, and respect that one receives (Robbins et al., 2012). It speaks to the interpersonal behavior workers get from decision-makers and the suitability of the formal decision-making processes for explanation (Greenberg, 1990.). Supervisor trust-building activities include availability, competency, consistency,integrity, discreetness, openness,justice, loyalty, promisefulfillment, receptacle, and trust, resulting in perceptions of interactional justice (Deluga, 1994). Two particular forms of interpersonal treatment, personal and informational justice,have come to define interactional justice as consisting of (Greenberg, 1990). Interpersonal justice is the treatment one receives personally: courtesy, decency, and respect (Colquitt, 2001). In informational justice, one explains the rationale for specific methods of execution (Colquitt, 2001). Informational justice imitatesimpartiality opinions depending on the rationale and explanation of any choice taken, comments received, or outcome obtained. Employees who feel unfairly treated rebel (e.g., they could bad-mouth a boss) (Skarlicki& Folger, 1997).
Job Performance
Consensus does not define "performance" everywhere. Various writers approach definitions from various angles. Usually, "job performance" describes official work responsibilities imposed by organizational authorities and is assessed in performance reviews (Organ, 1988). Workplace fairness predicts how well people do their job duties, forecasting their performance in field settings more than in the undergraduate laboratory(Colquitt et al., 2001). As Lerner (2003) noted, the impact of justice is frequently apparent in real life.
According to increasing research, emotional intelligence is not isolated but instead impacted by many organizational elements. Of these, organizational justice, that is, workers' impressions of fairness in their workplace- has attracted much interest. Distributive justice (impartiality in resource allocation), procedural justice (impartiality in the procedures primarily to results), and interactional justice (impartiality in interpersonal treatment) all comprise organizational justice (Colquitt, 2001). Though organizational justice and emotional intelligence are important, little study has examined how these ideas affect work outcomes. This study aims to bridge this gap by “Exploring the Mediating Role of Organizational Justice in the Relationship Between Emotional Intelligence and Job Performance Among Primary Healthcare Employees.”
Review of Literature
How employees see OJ is personal and is often thought to depend on events at work, how things are set up, and how managers and employees deal with each other (Hollensbe et al., 2008). There are three parts to OJ: social justice, formal justice, and interactional justice (Bies & Moag, 1986). When people think it is fair that company benefits are given out based on the input-output process, this is called distributive justice (DJ). On the other hand, procedure justice (PJ) is how fair people think the steps are used to give out company resources and rewards, such as giving people access to the decision-making processes and results.
Emotionally intelligent workers may be less prone to obsess about unjust or immoraldecisions (Petrides et al., 2007) and better at determining if the company treats them honestly, politically, and respectfully.
In the workplace, one often used performance is job performance. It most usually speaks to someone's performance in their employment. Job performance is a personal level variable, claims Campbell (1990) and (Campbell, McCloy, Oppler, & Sager, 1993). Still,the research intends to concentrate on the performance of the staff.
Distribution of Justice and Job Performance: According to Robbins et al. (2012), employees' level of satisfaction in companies is somewhat correlated with distributive justice. Job happiness determines higher performance in your work.
Procedural justice and Job performance
The equity of policies or processes to determine what to do or carry out (Thibaut & Walker, 1975). Those who think procedural fairness have more power in their environment and respond with less absenteeism, lower turnover intentions, and better job performance and organizational commitment (Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000).
Job performance has always been favorably associated to perceptions of procedural fairness (Cropanzano, Prefer & Chen, 2002; Konovsky&Cropanzano, 1991).
Views of procedural justice could also improve the perceived fairness of the results they generate (Lind & Tyler, 1988).
Interactional Justice and Performance
People at work naturally want respect. They should be treated with respect and dignity using their authority. Earlier studies indicate that job applicants value interactional fairness (Bies & Moag., 1986; Gilliland, 1995).
Recent research underlines how important emotional intelligence is in increasing work performance in many industries (Pekaar et al., 2022). Emotional intelligence fosters resilience, enhances interpersonal relationships, and contributes to effective problem-solving (Bar-On, 2021). In healthcare, emotionally intelligent professionals exhibit greater adaptability, reduced burnout, and higher patient satisfaction rates (Schutte et al., 2022).
Organizational justice has emerged as a pivotal factor influencing workplace behavior. Recent research underscores its role in fostering job satisfaction, commitment, and ethical conduct among employees (Bies, 2023). Empirical data indicates that workers' psychological well-being influences their views of justice, influencing their performance and retention (Ambrose & Schminke, 2022).
Combining emotional intelligence with organizational justice, new research indicates that EIpeople are better suited to understand and react to signals in the workplace connected to justice (Jordan & Troth, 2021). This relationship is significant in high-stress healthcare settings, where workers' views of justice might define their engagement levels and general job performance (Farh et al., 2022).
Research Problem:
Although organizational justice is important for improving employee performance, the processes by which these benefits are realized are still mostly unknown. The function of EI as a mediator in connection has not been well investigated; hence, there is a lack of knowledge of how emotional abilities could affect workers' reactions to justice perceptions and subsequent job performance.
Research Gap
Although much research shows how emotional intelligence improves work performance (Goleman, 2021; Wong & Law, 2017), little study has examined organizational justice's mediating influence in this connection. Research already in publication hasconcentrated chiefly on direct links, ignoring the possible interaction between workers' views of justice and their capacity to use emotional intelligence in workplace performance (Cropanzano et al., 2022). Furthermore, most empirical research has been supported in corporate and educational organizations with little regard for primary healthcare professionals working in high-stress conditions needing significant emotional labor (Crawford et al., 2021).Furthermore, the literature lacks a comprehensive theoretical framework integrating emotional intelligence, organizational justice, and job performance within primary healthcare (McShane & Von Glinow, 2022). Recent research calls for examining context-specific mediating variables that influence employee outcomes in healthcare settings (Judge & Colquitt, 2023). Addressing this gap is crucial for developing targeted interventions to enhance workers' well-being and performance titled “The Mediating Role of Organizational Justice in the Relationship Between Emotional Intelligence and Job Performance in Primary Health Care.”
Research objectives:
“Social Exchange Theory (SET) and Affective Events Theory (AET) interpret the proposed framework.”
SET-Emphasizing the reciprocal character of interactions in social and organizational settings, which suggests that workers repay fair treatment and emotional support with enhanced performance, the suggested framework strongly corresponds with SET (Blau, 1964). Furthermore, guiding emotional dynamics is the AET (Weiss &Cropanzano, 1996), emphasizing how workplace proceedings generate emotional reactions that influence job performance. Within a single theoretical framework, SET may be used successfully to investigate all the interactions in the hypotheses.
SET offers a theoretical prism through which one may see how Emotional Intelligence (EI), Organizational Justice (OJ), including “Distributive Justice (DJ), Procedural Justice (PJ), Interactional Justice (IJ), and Employee Job Performance (EJP)” combine. This idea is essential for clarifying how views of justice and emotional competency foster employee performance, motivation, and engagement.
a theoretical basis
According to SET, good connections in the workplace are based on reciprocal exchanges wherein people return favorable treatment utilizing activities that help the company. The foundation of employee-employer contact is trust, duty, and mutual respect that underlie these exchanges (Cropanzano& Mitchell, 2005). Emotional intelligence helps workers to negotiate these interactions by creating favourable emotional environments and thereby supporting ideas of justice.
Application of SET to Emotional Intelligence (EI)
High E-I employees show improved emotional control, empathy, and interpersonal skills—qualities necessary for starting and maintaining effective social interactions. Such employees can create trust-enhancing interactions, encouraging their peers and supervisors to reciprocate fairly in decision-making and treatment (Côté, 2014). For instance, emotionally intelligent employees may manage conflicts constructively, ensuring a perception of justice among colleagues and strengthening the organization's reciprocal relationship.
Organizational Justice (OJ) as a Mediator in Social Exchanges
Organizational justice acts as a mediating mechanism within the framework, facilitating the connectionamong EI and job performance through the principles. When employees perceive fair treatment in terms of outcomes (DJ), processes (PJ), and interpersonal interactions (IJ), they are more likely to exhibit positive discretionary behaviors and job dedication. These perceptions act as a psychological contract where employees feel obligated to reciprocate fairness with enhanced job performance (Rupp &Cropanzano, 2002).
For example:
Perceptions of fairness are personal and hence shaped by people's emotional states and skills (Ouyang et al., 2015). Employees with more emotional intelligence are more exact in their judgments about whether they are being appropriately handled, equally, and pleasantly among corporate staff members if they can adequately assess the feelings of others (Cohen Charash & Spector, 2001). A positive perspective on organizational justice leads to more confidence and trust in the “employee-employer relationship (Ouyang et al., 2015;Mikula et al. (1998),” whereas injustice causes terrible feelings, the experience of justice inspires pleasant emotions. Depending on the range of OJ workers' experience, organizational justice could either increase or decrease job satisfaction and turnover. Constant with AET, we hypothesize that workers with greater EI have good impressions of OJ owing to their careful deliberation while analyzing organizational events, which pushes them to stay in the company and promotes more happiness toward work. Ouyang et al. (2015) and Meisler (2013), who proposed DJ, PJ, and IJ as purposeful mediators in predicting job outcomes, help to corroborate our hypothesis somewhat.
Social Exchange Theory (SET) (Blau, 1964) offers a compelling theoretical lens for examining how organizational justice is an intermediary in the linkage between emotional intelligence and job performance. Central to SET is the notion that equitable treatment within the organizational context elicits reciprocal behaviors characterized by increased dedication and efficiency. In primary healthcare, when employees perceive fairness in organizational practices, they are more inclined to leverage their emotional competencies in ways that promote adaptive, performance-enhancing behaviors (Colquitt & Rodell, 2021).
Employee Job Performance and the Feedback Loop in SET
SET suggests that when employees perceive positive exchanges, they reciprocate by improving performance outcomes. Over time, these outcomes reinforce their position in the exchange relationship, fostering continuous emotional growth and a stronger sense of justice (Organ, 1997). This feedback loop underscores the framework's dynamic relationship between EI, OJ, and EJP.
Practical Applications of SET in Organizational Contexts
From an applied perspective, the framework suggests that organizations can enhance employee performance by fostering:
Affective Events Theory (AET) (Weiss &Cropanzano, 1996) provides a nuanced perspective on how workplace occurrences evoke emotional responses that, in turn, influence employees’ attitudes and behavioral outcomes. Organizational decisions related to performance evaluations, career advancement, task delegation, and reward allocation represent salient events that shape employees’ affective states and overall job satisfaction (Colquitt et al., 2001). This framework underscores the pivotal role of day-to-day organizational experiences in triggering emotional reactions that ultimately impact individual performance levels.Emotionally intelligent individuals navigate workplace fairness dynamics more effectively, reinforcing a positive feedback loop that enhances performance outcomes (Ashkanasy& Dorris, 2022).
Application of AET towards EI, OJ, and EJP
AET posits that workplace events trigger emotional responses, subsequently influencing behaviors and attitudes. In this model:
The model aligns with AET by emphasizing the emotional and affective processes that connect workplace fairness, emotions, and job performance outcomes.
This study bridges the current research gap by investigating the mediating role of organizational justice in the emotional intelligence performance nexus within primary healthcare. This research seeks to advance scholarly understanding and inform policy frameworks that optimize healthcare workforce performance by applying robust theoretical models.
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework
Figure 2: Mediating relationship between EI and EJP
H1:“Emotional Intelligence (EI) is positively related to Employee job performance.”
H2a:“Emotional Intelligence (EI) is positively connected to Distributive Justice (DJ).”
H2b:“Emotional Intelligence (EI) is positively connected to Procedural Justice (PJ).”
H2c:“Emotional Intelligence (EI) positively Connected to Interactional Justice (IJ).”
H3a:“DJ is positively related to Employee job performance.”
H3b:“PJ is positively related to Employee job performance.”
H3c:“IJ is positively related to Employee job performance.”
H4a:“DJ mediates the relationship between Emotional Intelligence (EI) and Employee job performance.”
H4b:“PJ mediates the relationship between Emotional Intelligence (EI) and Employee job performance.”
H4c:“IJ mediates the relationship between Emotional Intelligence (EI) and Employee job performance.”
Employee Job Performance (EJP)
Job performance encompasses the efficiency and effectiveness with which employees meet role expectations. Both emotional and organizational factors influence it. Employees demonstrating higher EI and perceiving a just workplace are likelier to achieve superior performance as they experience enhanced motivation, trust, and commitment (Campbell, McCloy, Oppler, & Sager, 1993).
Direct Influence of EI on OJ and EJP: Personnel with higher EI can better interpret workplace cues, foster interpersonal harmony, and contribute positively to organizational justice perceptions, directly improving job performance.
OJ as a Mediator: Organizational justice mediates and supports the interaction between EI and EJP, suggesting that the fairness perceptions engendered by emotionally intelligent behaviors lead to improved job outcomes.
Through its outcomes, employee job performance may reinforce or alter emotional intelligence levels, creating a feedback loop that emphasizes the dynamic nature of these relationships.
Theoretical Integration and Practical Implications
This model bridges SET and AET by showcasing the dual pathways, one mediated through organizational justice and the other, which are direct from emotional intelligence to employee job performance. SET emphasizes fairness's relational and reciprocal nature (OJ) in driving performance. AET highlights how emotions and affective states triggered by workplace justice are managed effectively through Emotional Intelligence, leading to improved performance.
The integration of these theories reflects a holistic understanding of how emotional abilities and fairness perceptions interact to optimize employee behavior and performance outcomes. This framework has significant implications for organizations that foster a fair and emotionally intelligent work environment to maximize employee potential.
Organizations can leverage this model by fostering emotional intelligence through training and enhancing fairness in processes and interactions. These interventions can synergistically improve employee satisfaction and performance, aligning with organizational goals.
RESEARCH METHODS
Measurement Scale adapted from:
EI: Wong and Law (2002) used the WLEIS scale to test EI using 16 items. A person's assessment of their capacity to recognize, use, and control their own emotions and those of others is measured by this scale.
OJ:DJ, PJ, and IJ, the three sub-dimensions of organizational justice (OJ), were measured using the 20-item Niehoff and Moorman (1993) scale. Although there have been worries over an uneven quantity of items for DJ, PJ, and IJ, Niehoff and Moorman's (1993) have continuously shown good reliabilities in all dimensions. Additionally, earlier studies have supported the basic three-factor structure Niehoff and Moorman (1993) proposed in several diverse scenarios (Gürbüz & Mert, 2009).
Employee Job Performance:
6 items adapted from Tsui et al. (1997) were used to measure the job performance
Demographic Variables: Typically include characteristics such as age, gender, educational level, marital status and years of experience of individuals. This study uses these variables to understand how they may influence or interact with emotional intelligence, organizational justice, and job performance.
Survey instruments
Organizational fairness and executive job performance were assessed using a self-rated printed questionnaire. Every survey measure in this work was assessed using a “7-point Likert scale from 7 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree).”The survey tool captured key EI, OJ, and JP factors.
Reliability and validity
The reliability was confirmed through the calculation of Cronbach’s Alpha (CA) and composite Reliability (CR) for the model, all of which, beyond the threshold of 0.70, proved the model's dependability, suggesting acceptable internal consistency (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2019). The present work showed a job performance scale reliability coefficient of 0.80.
Cronbach’s Alpha
|
Constructs |
Acronym |
No. of items |
Cronbach’s Alpha |
Internal consistency |
|
Emotional Intelligence |
EI |
16 |
0.955 |
Excellent |
|
Organizational Justice |
OJ |
20 |
0.84 |
Good |
|
Employee Job Performance |
EJP |
6 |
0.873 |
Good |
Table:1 Reliability and validity
Reliability is the uniformity of items evaluating the examined variables/concepts. It reveals the personal differences in the level of agreement or disagreement. The current researchers assessed general Emotional Intelligence, organizational justice, and job performance scale, 2002; Cooper & Schinder, 2001). Though Cronbach's alpha ranges from 0 to 1, a decent number for the scale to be consistent is over .60 (Malhotra, 2002; Cronbach, 1951). However, the present research's perceived general Emotional Intelligence, organizational justice, and job performance scale, therefore,Cronbach's alphas of 0.955, 0.84, and 0.873, respectively. All these survey technologies were, therefore, very consistent for data collecting.
Model Fit:
|
Goodness of Fit |
Good |
Fair |
My Model (Results) |
|
GFI (“Goodness of fit index”) |
>.95 |
>.85 |
0.960 |
|
AGFI (“Adjusted goodness of fit index”) |
>.85 |
>.8 |
0.908 |
|
NFI (“Normal fit index”) |
>.9 |
>.85 |
0.913 |
|
IFI (“Incremental Fit Index”) |
>.9 |
>.85 |
0.991 |
|
TLI (“Tucker-Lewis coefficient”) |
>.9 |
>.85 |
0.961 |
|
CFI (Comparative Fit Index) |
>.9 |
>.85 |
0.925 |
Table:2Model fit indices
Discriminant validity (Fornell–Larcker criterion)
|
Construct |
EI |
OJ |
JP |
|
EI |
0.966 |
0.854 |
0.662 |
|
OJ |
0.680 |
0.762 |
0.685 |
|
JP |
0.865 |
0.818 |
0.864 |
Table:3 Discriminant validity
The AVE values were more than 0.50, and all item loadings were more significant than 0.70, suggesting that the convergent validity was good quality. All correlations were smaller than AVE's square root, suggesting that the Fornell-Larcker criteria were used to assess the discriminant validity properly.
|
Variable Effect |
Path |
β |
SE
|
P |
|
Direct effect |
EIEJP |
0.543 |
0.08 |
<0.01 |
|
Indirect effect |
EI-OJ-EJP |
0.14 |
0.02 |
<0.01 |
|
Total effect |
EI-EJP |
0.68 |
0.08 |
<0.01 |
TableDirect and indirect relationships
The table presents the direct and indirect impacts of Emotional Intelligence on Employee Job performance. The findings indicated that exercise partially mediated the link between Organizational Justice and employee Job Performance (p < 0.001).
Conclusion
This paper underlines the dangerous influence of emotional intelligence and organizational justice in improving work performance among nursing personnel in basic healthcare environments. The findings indicate that emotionally intelligent employees can better negotiate workplace dynamics, improve performance outcomes, and support concepts of justice. Emphasizing the need for fair treatment, open procedures, and polite interactions in the workplace, organizational justice, which includes distributive, procedural, and interactional justice, is a major mediator in this connection.Combining Affective Events Theory with Social Exchange Theory offers a strong framework for comprehending how job performance, perceptions of justice, and emotional intelligence interact. Healthcare companies may build a motivating work environment that improves staff performance, dedication, and motivation by encouraging emotional intelligence and guaranteeing organizational justice.
Practical consequences include the use of EI training courses, the creation of equitable incentive systems, and the encouragement of open decision-making procedures. These treatments may assist in reducing the difficulties of high-stress medical settings, enhancing organizational results and patient treatment. Future studies in many cultural and organizational settings should investigate these correlations to confirm the results further and guide customized plans for workforce optimization.This learning adds to the increasing corpus of EI and organizational justice research. It provides insightful analysis for legislators and healthcare managers trying to improve employee performance and well-being in primary healthcare environments.
References:
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 267-299.
Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (2022). Fairness and well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 43(1), 34-51.
Ashkanasy, N. M., & Dorris, A. D. (2022). Emotion regulation in the workplace: Affective events theory revisited. Academy of Management Review, 47(2), 301-320.
Bar-On, R. (2021). Emotional intelligence and job performance: A longitudinal study. Personality and Individual Differences, 178, 110814.
Bies, R. J. (2023). Interactional justice: The overlooked component of organizational fairness. Human Relations, 76(3), 375-398.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Wiley.
Boyatzis, R. E. (2018). The behavioral level of emotional intelligence and its impact on leadership effectiveness. Leadership Quarterly, 29(2), 343-357.
Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., & Sager, C. E. (1993). A theory of performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 35-70).
Colquitt, J. A., & Rodell, J. B. (2021). Organizational justice and workplace behavior. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 8, 67-91.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., &LePine, J. A. (2019). Justice at the workplace: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 45(1), 210-243.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425-445.
Côté, S. (2014). Emotional intelligence in organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 459-488.
Côté, S. (2022). Emotional intelligence in the workplace: A critical review. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 9, 85-111.
Cropanzano, R., Goldman, B., & Benson, L. (2022). Organizational justice and performance: A review and research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 178(2), 315-332.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874-900.
Crawford, E. R., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2021). Emotional labor and employee performance: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(4), 567-590.
Farh, C. I., Seo, M. G., & Tesluk, P. E. (2022). Emotional intelligence, fairness perceptions, and job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 43(5), 745-763.
Goleman, D. (1998). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New York: Bantam Books.
Goleman, D. (2021). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. Bantam.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219-247.
Greenberg, J. (2020). Justice in the workplace: A historical perspective. Journal of Management, 46(4), 567-590.
Hair, J. F., Hollingsworth, C. L., Randolph, A. B., & Chong, A. Y. L. (2017). An updated and expanded assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems research. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 117(3), 442-458.
Hair, J. F. Jr., Howard, M. C., &Nitzl, C. (2020). Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using confirmatory composite analysis. Journal of Business Research, 109, 101-110.
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139-152.
Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2-24.
Jordan, P. J., & Troth, A. C. (2021). The role of EI in organizational settings: A critical review. Annual Review of Psychology, 72, 347-372.
Judge, T. A., & Colquitt, J. A. (2023). The interplay of fairness and emotional intelligence. Personnel Psychology, 76(2), 189-215.
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Implications for educators (pp. 3-31).
McShane, S. L., & Von Glinow, M. A. (2022).Organizational behavior. McGraw-Hill Education.
Moorman, R. H. (2021). Perceptions of fairness in healthcare: A systematic review. Healthcare Management Review, 46(3), 234-250.
Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It's construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10(2), 85-97.
Rupp, D. E., &Cropanzano, R. (2002). The mediating effects of social exchange relationships in predicting workplace outcomes from multifoci organizational justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89(1), 925-946.
Weiss, H. M., &Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes, and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18, 1-74.
