FINAL PAPER

Mediation role of job satisfaction between Emotional

Intelligence and Collaboration satisfaction
An integration perspective

Supervised by:

Dr. Shazia Nauman

Submitted by

M Yousaf Yaqoob
Mediation role of job satisfaction between Emotional Intelligence and Collaboration satisfaction

Mediation role of job satisfaction between Emotional

Intelligence and Collaboration satisfaction

Supervision by: Dr. Shazia Nauman

Conducted by: M Yousaf Yaqoob

CMS: 402774
MSPM 2nd semester

Department of management sciences of Riphah International University Lahore

Mediation role of job satisfaction between Emotional Intelligence and Collaboration satisfaction

Abstract
Collaboration Satisfaction of team work is become an important factor now a days in integrated
Project delivery (IPD) to increase the outputs of projects. Emotional intelligence (IE) and
leadership styles are also key factors which can be used by top level management to manage
the emotions of teams. The purpose of this paper is to examine whether Job satisfaction (JS)
mediate the link between the emotional intelligence (EI) of authorized leader and four
collaboration satisfaction outcomes perceived by other participants in an integrated project
team: performance contribution satisfaction (PCS), efficiency satisfaction (ES), relationship
satisfaction (RS), and interest’s satisfaction (IS). The results show that Job satisfaction could
not mediate the relationships of EI with PCS, ES, and IS, and RS. It also found that EI of sub
ordinates could not moderate between EI and JS, while leadership style (Transformational)
moderate between EI and Collaboration satisfaction. Data is collected from workers of different
industries and experienced worker of collaborative system and also from worker presently
doing job in education field.

Key Words: Emotional Intelligence, Leadership Styles, Job Satisfaction, Collaboration

satisfaction.
Mediation role of job satisfaction between Emotional Intelligence and Collaboration satisfaction

Introduction
Collaboration is said to take place when two individuals or a group of people work together
towards achieving a common goal by sharing their ideas and skills. It can happen in traditional
as well as virtual teams. With advancements in technology, using cloud-based programs to
share files and communicate has become commonplace. Collaboration challenges people to
think, articulate and receive clarity about their competencies. It serves as a mirror that gives
them a glimpse of their strengths and weaknesses. Because two heads are better than one, teams
work better together and plug each other’s gaps. When a variety of knowledge and skills are
pooled, it creates a talent pool that is vast and more competent, able and experienced. Virtual
collaboration minimizes or even eliminates the need for finances and infrastructure. Thanks to
the Internet, businesses can gain better market reach and organizations with people from
diverse backgrounds can thrive. Let when people are the same, and when several people from
different backgrounds working for an organization, organization will need to know how to
leverage those differences and identify how they can complement each other. Organization also
need to understand that even if the project does not shape up the way organization wanted it to
in the end, the partnership could still achieve a great deal.
Over the last decades, there are strong arguments for incorporating all project parties
into one team to perform a project and applying relational contracting appropriately (Bygballe,
Swärd, & Vaagaasar, 2016; Rahman & Kumaraswamy, 2011). Therefore, a new project
delivery method known as integrated project delivery (IPD) emerged and the benefit of
integrated process has been identified through professional institutes and living project samples
(El Asmar, Hanna, & Loh, 2013; Lenferink, Tillema, & Arts, 2013). Bond by the three IPD
principles of early involvement of all parties, shared risk and rewards, and multiparty
agreement (Kent & Becerik-Gerber, 2010), collaboration among heterogeneous project parties
has become the critical success factor for operating integrated projects (Phua & Rowlinson,
2004). Keeping favorable collaboration helps not only achieve short-term business objectives
such as the three success criteria of cost, time, and quality (Chiocchio, Forgues, Paradis, &
Iordanova, 2011; Iyer & Jha, 2005), but also foster harmonious working relationships and
important affective states crucial to long-term steady development (Chiocchio et al., 2011).
As a matter of fact, it is challengeable for contracting parties which are organized in
different structures and interest demands to attain a high level of collaboration in IPD. The
architects' reluctance to change decisions made by owners, for example, may lead to reduced
satisfaction or even a collapse of collaboration. Thus, some scholars considered that project
participant’s collaboration satisfaction could provide a holistic perspective to measure complex
project success (Kärnä et al., 2013). Heimbürger and Dietrich (2012) have contributed to the
measures of participant satisfaction by establishing multi-factor hierarchical fuzzy evaluation
model and theoretical framework. However, there is still a lack of comprehensive collaboration
satisfaction criteria for IPD and the exploration of potential influencing mechanisms at social
and psychological level.
In the competitive construction environment, numerous organizations insist that their “greatest
asset is our people” (Butler & Chinowsky, 2006). Leaders in IPD, referred to authorized
representatives of each participant in this paper, are the critical factors that influence internal
organization operation and external collaborative relationships. Their ideas of open and honest
Mediation role of job satisfaction between Emotional Intelligence and Collaboration satisfaction

communication, collaborative decision and risk allocation may help improve organizational
subordinates' commitment to IPD (Lok & Crawford, 2004). Moreover, project leaders can
recognize the characteristics of different participants intuitively and then influence the project
outcomes based on their emotional cognition and power (Nzekwe-Excel, Nwagboso,
Georgakis, & Proverbs, 2010). Many scholars argued that the leadership of project managers
have great influence on project performance (Müller & Turner, 2007).
Therefore, leaders in IPD can achieve good project performance through appropriate
leadership. Recently, the full range of leadership (FRL) model (B. M. Bass & Avolio, 1990;
M. Bass, Kravath, & Glass, 1986), consisting of transformational, transactional and laissez-
faire leadership, has been considered as the most dominant theoretical approach to leadership.
However, previous research on primary nine-factor structure in varying contexts draws
controversial conclusions (Tyssen, Wald, & Spieth, 2014). In addition, a large number of
relevant studies focused on one-dimensional examination of the FRL model such as
transformational leadership, ignoring the exploration of other dimensions (Ryan & Tipu, 2013).
Consequently, a careful modification and examination of the complete set of FRL model in
IPD are needed.
Current research highlights the importance of emotional intelligence (EI) in the project settings,
involving the contributions of EI to leadership styles (Butler & Chinowsky, 2006; Sunindijo,
Hadikusumo, & Ogunlana, 2007) and the benefits to collaboration satisfaction (Turner &
Lloyd-Walker, 2008). However, there is a lack of empirical evidence that explores the
moderation role of leadership styles in collaboration satisfaction from an EI perspective,
although it is obvious that leaders with high EI can adapt their leadership styles to improve the
collaboration satisfaction better. Moreover, the existing EI model which is often used directly
in current studies may result in controversial results due to its lack of pertinence to some extent.
To advance the research further, the paper first modified the EI model based on Goldman’s
model and reclassified the leadership types based on FRL model. And then, collaboration
satisfaction criteria of IPD was proposed in view of the projects' characteristics. In addition,
the study investigated the mediation of job satisfaction and moderation role of leadership styles
of IPD leaders in the relationship between leaders' EI and other participants' collaboration
satisfaction.
Literature Review
Underline Theory and Theoretical Framework
This research is based on Affective Events Theory (Weiss & Beal, 2005), that is a
psychological model designed to explain the connection between emotions and feelings in the
workplace and job performance, job satisfaction and behaviors. AET is underlined by a belief
that human beings are emotional and that their behavior is guided by emotion. We draw a
model on the principles of Affective Events Theory (Weiss, Suckow, & Cropanzano, 1999).
Within the AET model, events at work result in employee affective reactions that, in turn,
determine their subsequent work attitudes and behaviors. As (Ashkanasy & Daus, 2002) has
pointed out, the underlying principles of AET enable us to understand the cause and
consequence of emotional experience on employee work attitudes and behavior. In our study
we extend this to consider how emotion plays a role in the leadership of complex projects.
Emotional intelligence:
Mediation role of job satisfaction between Emotional Intelligence and Collaboration satisfaction

Salovey and Mayer (1990) define EI as an “ability to monitor one's and others' feelings and
emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one's thinking and
actions” (p. 189). EI theories were broadly divided into two distinct formulations: an ability
model and a mixed model (Bratton & Henson, 2011) . The ability model, labeled by the work
of J. D. Mayer and Salovey (2007), has the key characteristics of comprehending and
managing one's own and others' emotions which facilitates the formation of advantageous
thoughts and behaviors (Bratton & Henson, 2011; H. Mayer, Holst, Schindler, & Ahrens,
2008) and can be improved in accordance with the development of age and experience of
people. Different from the ability model, Goleman (1996) advocated the mixed model of EI in
broader sense, combining personality aspects with social behaviors and competencies.
Subsequently, Bar-On (1997)whose research was associated with the work of Goleman (1998)
concluded that “EI is an incorporation of non-cognitive capabilities, competencies, and skills
that influence individual's ability to succeed in coping with environmental demands and
pressures”. Specifically, he stated that the application of individual personality could
contribute to EI improvement, and thus impact the project performance (Bar-On, 2004).
Job satisfaction
Brief (1998) defines job satisfaction as “an attitude toward one's job” (p. 10). As such, job
satisfaction encompasses cognitive and affective components. Previous studies (Locke, 1969;
Weiss, 2002) have shown that both affective and cognitive components contribute to overall
attitude and behavior. Scholars have studied job satisfaction as both an independent and a
dependent variable. Job satisfaction as an independent variable has been shown to be associated
with a variety of workplace behaviors such as project managers' performance and turnover
intention, as well as project success ((Bowling, 2007; Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001).
For example Parker and Skitmore (2005) found that job satisfaction is a significant predictor
of a project manager's turnover intention. Moreover, Pheng and Chuan (2006) found that a
project manager's performance is affected by job satisfaction, especially in complex projects.
Transformational leadership
Transformational leaders usually use their charming personalities to foster a collective sense
of mission and provide an inspirational vision of the future to enhance subordinates' confidence
and passion (Densten, 2002). While solving problems, transformational leaders stimulate
subordinates to challenge the traditional manners in new perspectives and put more emphasis
on the importance of collaboration (Arnold & Loughlin, 2013). More notably, transformational
leaders spend more time to address subordinates' individual needs for personal growth and
achievement. Thus, subordinates tend to generate intrinsic motivation and pay less attention on
their self-interests. And finally, transformational behaviors are classified as “incentives and
intrinsic” type. Transformational leadership theory has also highlighted the importance of
leaders' influence on followers' emotional states (Ashkanasy & Tse, 2000) and several studies
have provided emotion-type insights into the transformational leader–follower linkage.
(McColl-Kennedy & Anderson, 2002) for example, showed that transformational leaders who
suggested alternative solutions to problems and who showed individualized consideration to
followers were able to redirect follower negative feelings of frustration and helplessness to
more constructive ones, which, in turn, led to heightened followers' performance. Conversely,
perceptions of minimal transformational leadership behaviors resulted in high levels of
Mediation role of job satisfaction between Emotional Intelligence and Collaboration satisfaction

follower frustration and low performance levels. Recent studies have also shown that energetic,
exciting, and emotionally appealing expressions of charisma created positive moods in
followers (Bono & Ilies, 2006) and lessened the emotion-related phenomena of burnout and
stress in the workplace ((Bono, Foldes, Vinson, & Muros, 2007). Such results imply that
transformational leadership can be interpreted as a process in which leaders use emotions to:
communicate a vision to, as well as elicit responses from, followers; and to ensure that
followers are emotionally motivated to perform their tasks beyond their own expectations
(Brown & Moshavi, 2005).
Collaborative satisfaction
It would seem that emotionally intelligent teams are better able to create a collaborative
culture. This is because teamwork depends on employees’ abilities to understand each other’s
emotions, as well as the ability to regulate their own emotions to fit the task and situation.
Research shows that team members’ emotions shape their attitudes and behaviors which in turn
impact unit and organizational performance (Avey, Wernsing, & Luthans, 2008). Team
members’ ability to identify and choose the best course of action is stronger when they are
aware of their own and others’ emotions and have the ability to control and channel the
emotions appropriately. Li, Ng, and Skitmore (2013) established a multi-factor hierarchical
fuzzy comprehensive evaluation model to assess participants' satisfaction in major
infrastructure and construction projects. A comprehensive theoretical framework to measure
collaboration performance in facility service business was proposed, which incorporates 13
important elements involving participant benefits, fluency of interaction, leadership
competencies, etc. After summarizing the previous research, we developed an “iron
triangle” criteria from the perspective of evaluating performance contribution of other
collaborators, and ameliorated the criteria according to the multi-dimensional concepts of
collaboration satisfaction and the characteristics of IPD
Hypothesis Development
Emotional intelligence and collaboration satisfaction
In the forgoing discussion we established the relationships between project managers' EI and
collaboration satisfaction (H1). .Job satisfaction serve as mediated role through which EI
contributes to others' collaboration satisfaction. Leaders' self-aware abilities to appraise and
perceive own emotions may help organization exploit unique opportunities to maintain
creativity, and the abilities of recognizing other participants' unhappiness or dissatisfaction are
beneficial to creative problems solving (Barczak, Lassk, & Mulki, 2010). The process of
improving creativity may assist leaders to win other participants' satisfaction with their
contribution to performance. The leaders' self-management ability equipped with EI can drive
subordinates to adapt to changeful environment, which can improve efficiency satisfaction of
other participants as well as facilitate organizational execution. More importantly, the leaders'
empathy ability can help to realize other participants' underlying requirements in both mission
and relationship as well as settle organizational conflict (Mersino, 2013). Project leaders
equipped with emotional ability in team management are good at enhancing subordinates' task
motivation by using incentive measures and building continually collaborative relationships
based on mutual economic sharing among participants (Pinto et al., 2009). In this research, we
propose that EI makes contribution to collaboration satisfaction through leadership style which
Mediation role of job satisfaction between Emotional Intelligence and Collaboration satisfaction

is influenced by EI. For project leaders, their EI facilitates the selection of appropriate
leadership styles for producing desirable outcomes. Moreover, EI on its own may not result in
superior outcomes without leadership styles. Project leaders transform their elements of EI into
relevant leadership behaviors during the process of project implementation. Their different
leadership styles affect participants' collaboration satisfaction directly. Based on those
arguments, the following hypotheses are developed:

Hypothesis 1: Emotional intelligence of leader is positively related to Collaboration satisfaction

Emotional intelligence and Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction refers to “an evaluative state that expresses contentment with and positive
feelings about one's job” (Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012), p. 343. Job satisfaction has two
relevant components, namely affective (feelings toward one's job) and cognitive (cognitive
evaluation of one's job) components (Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012). Job satisfaction has
been a primary focus of organizational researchers and practitioners for years, due to its
influences on a variety of workplace outcomes. Affective events theorists posit that each
individual has an average affective mood level, and that some individuals have negative
affective mood levels whereas others have positive affective mood levels. High EI, in particular
the ability to perceive and understand emotions, may also help leaders to recognize when they
need to empathize with subordinates who are experiencing problems. For instance, Kellett and
her colleagues found that the ability to perceive others' emotions predicted empathy, which in
turn predicted both relations and task leadership (Kellett, Humphrey, & Sleeth, 2006) . Thus,
emotionally savvy leaders can improve their followers' job satisfaction by displaying empathy
and demonstrating that they care about their followers' well-being. Likewise, Bono and Ilies
(2006)argued that followers' satisfaction will be boosted if leaders treat followers with
psychological benefits such as approval, respect, esteem, and affection. They argued that
leaders high on EI would be more likely to provide these benefits, and their study found a
positive link between leader EI and subordinate job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 2: Emotional intelligence of leader is positively related to job satisfaction

1.1.1. Job satisfaction and collaboration satisfaction

Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) argued that job satisfaction can increase both the expectancy
that an employee's effort will lead to high performance and the belief that sustained effort will
lead to desirable behavioral outcomes. In an extension of this idea, (Fisher et al., 2003)
suggested that when employees are more satisfied with their job, their motivation to contribute
to the common interest of the context in which they perform their work also increases. Thus,
when project managers are satisfied they tend to seek out social interactions, react more
favorably to others, have greater involvement in activities, and communicate more with their
stakeholders because they are more likely to view such interactions as rich and rewarding.
Moreover, as (Fisher et al., 2003) found, satisfied project managers are also more likely to
undertake more effective problem resolution (troubleshooting), and to set clear directions and
motivate team members to undertake new goals that they have not yet attained (B. M. Bass &
Avolio, 1997)).
Mediation role of job satisfaction between Emotional Intelligence and Collaboration satisfaction

Hypothesis 3: Job satisfaction positively related to collaboration satisfaction.

Hypothesis 4: Job satisfaction mediate between emotional intelligence of leader and collaboration
satisfaction.

Emotional intelligence and Transformation leadership (Moderating Effect)

A growing body of studies have demonstrated that EI is an underlying factor associated with
the behavioral styles of leaders Foster and Roche (2014). The relationship between EI and
leadership in project management has been investigated at different levels (Butler &
Chinowsky, 2006; Gardner & Stough, 2002). Butler and Chinowsky (2006) found that EI
behaviors such as interpersonal skills and empathy are significantly related to transformational
leadership in construction executives. Similarly,Sunindijo et al. (2007) examined the
relationships between EI and thirteen leadership behaviors in construction projects and found
that project managers with higher EI prefer open communication and proactive leadership
styles.
Hypothesis 5: Leadership style (transformational leadership and transactional leadership) positively
moderate between emotional intelligence and collaboration satisfaction.
Emotional intelligence of leader and subordinate’s emotional intelligence. (Moderating
effect)
Emotionally intelligent leaders are likely to create an organizational culture that values
emotional intelligence and that attracts and retains emotionally intelligent followers (Lin, Chen,
& Song, 2012) Moreover, emotionally intelligent leaders may increase their team members'
sense of trust and group identity, which in turn can build group emotional intelligence. Further,
emotionally intelligent leaders promote training and developmental opportunities that cultivate
their followers' emotional intelligence and skills (Pieterse, Van der Does, Zamioudis, Leon-
Reyes, & Van Wees, 2012)This may enable their followers to behave in emotionally intelligent
ways when interacting with other organizational members, and may facilitate their using proper
strategies to cope with stresses and negative feelings, thereby enhancing followers' job
satisfaction. Thus, we proposed the following hypothesis.

Hypothesis 6: EI of sub ordinates moderate positively between emotional intelligence of leader and job
satisfaction.

2. RESEARCH MODEL AND HYPOTHESES

Hypothesis 1: Emotional intelligence of leader is positively related to Collaboration
satisfaction (Accepted)
Hypothesis 2: Emotional intelligence of leader is positively related to job satisfaction
(accepted)
Hypothesis 3: Job satisfaction positively related to collaboration satisfaction. (not accepted)
Hypothesis 4: Job satisfaction mediated positively between emotional intelligence of leader
and collaboration satisfaction. (not accepted)
Hypothesis 5: Leadership style (transformational leadership and transactional leadership)
positively moderate between emotional intelligence and collaboration
satisfaction. (accepted)
Mediation role of job satisfaction between Emotional Intelligence and Collaboration satisfaction

Hypothesis 6: EI of sub ordinates moderate positively between emotional intelligence of

leader and job satisfaction. (accepted)

Model

Methodology.

Sample and data selection

We selected diverse workers of different mechanical organization from different projects
possessing the characteristics of IPD as project leaders, such as EPC (Engineering
Procurement Construction) projects by simple random sampling
Measures

Emotional intelligence:
we explored specific items to describe the dimensions of EI according to famous
measure tools (Bar-On, 1997; J. Mayer, 1999). There were 15 items to measure the EI
competences. Specifically, the original cluster of social skills was altered to obtain
some elements of team management for IPD leaders. Sample items included, “I have
good sense and cognition of why I have certain feelings most of time” and “I try
my best to avoid personal feelings when solving conflicts in team management”.
Transformational leadership
13-Items used to measure transformational leadership which are published in a paper
Witten by Aga, Noorderhaven, and Vallejo (2016). The five-point Likert-type scales
were anchored on the extremes of 1 (not at all) to 5 (frequently, if not always).
Collaboration satisfaction
In order to identify whether other project participants felt satisfied for the
collaborative process with target respondent's organization, the closest collaborator
 Mediation role of job satisfaction between Emotional Intelligence and Collaboration satisfaction

should assess the

collaboration satisfaction in terms of a five-point Likert scale from quite
dissatisfactory to satisfactory. From a Chinese professor.
Job satisfaction
To measure job satisfaction we employed a four-item global job satisfaction scale
developed by (Wanous, Reichers, & Hudy, 1997)A sample item is “I am satisfied
with my job”.
Results and analysis
Reliability and validity
This questionnaire adopted Cronbach's ɑ coefficient to calculate the internal
consistency of the responses. The values of Cronbach's ɑ above 0.7 are considered acceptable
and those above 0.8 are considered meritorious (Litwin and Fink, 1995). Table 1 shows the
final number of items, the Cronbach's alphas, and the means for the three core composite
constructs used in this study. The construct validity was tested by factor analysis. To avoid
extract too many common factors, we limited factor extraction number and used varimax
rotation to verify the validity of the theoretical constructs in this study. Additionally, in the
light of Hair et al. (1986), if the factor loading of item from the rotated factor pattern is above
0.5 for a given factor, the item is considered to load on it.
Detail discussion about results

Table 1 exhibited the reliabilities for this study estimated α =.983 for EI of leader (16 items,
Mean = 4.2768, SD=1.7088), α = .794 for EI of subordinate. (16 items, mean=5.9206,
SD=.52101), α = .925 for Transformational leadership (13 items, mean = 2.8053, SD = .83372),
α=.849 for Job Satisfaction (14 Items, mean = 4.0580, SD=.40604), α=.930 for Collaboration
Satisfaction (16 Items, Mean = 3.3981, SD=.93057).

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics, Reliability and Correlations Analysis

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 α
1 Age 1.0510 .22060 1
2 Education 2.5612 .55593 .058 1
**
3 Experience 1.3112 .57296 .563 .141* 1
4 EI of Leader 4.2768 1.7088 0.047 .027 0.123 1 (.983)
EI of
5 5.9206 .52101 .108 .142* .064 .116 1 (.794)
Subordinate
Transformationa
6 2.8053 .83372 .099 .095 .104 .284** .089 1 (.925)
l Leadership
7 Job Satisfaction 4.0580 40604 .003 -.114 -.008 .072 .297* -.002 1 (.849)
Collaborative
8 3.3981 .93057 .092 .037 0.128 .886** .088* .473** .153** 1 (.930)
satisfaction
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Note: N = 195, Alpha reliabilities are presented in parentheses. *p < .05, ** < .01
Mediation role of job satisfaction between Emotional Intelligence and Collaboration satisfaction

Table 2 discussed all direct, indirect effects and total effects of mediation. To test mediation,
recommended direct and indirect path together. We calculated indirect effect by using
bootstrapping method as suggested by Hayes 2013. Result of mediation analysis (LLCI =-.0038
ULCI =0.0141) suggests that Job satisfaction does not mediate the relationship between EI and
CS (Total effect= 0.4823 p>. 01, Direct effect =0.4788p >. 05, Indirect effect = 0.0035,). These
results do not support the H3 and H4
Table: Mediation Analysis (Emotional intelligence, Job Satisfaction, Collaborative satisfaction)

95% CI

b p LL UL

EI JS CS

Total Effect 0.4823 0.000 0.4464 .5181

Direct Effect 0.4788 0.000 .4434 .5141
Indirect Effect 0.0035 non-Sig -.0038 0.0141
Note: b = unstandardized coefficient, p < 0.05, LL = Lower Limit, UL = Upper Limit, CI = Confidence interval

Table 3 discussed moderation effect of Transformational leadership between EI of leasder and

collaboration satisfaction. Results suggested that TL moderate the relationship between EI and
Collaboration (β = -.1628, p<.01), supporting hypothesis H5.

Predictor Collaboration Satisfaction

B SE P
0.0000
Constant -1.0533 .2149
0.0000
Emotional intelligence .8410 .0455
0.0000
Transformational leadership 1.0241 0.0874
Int_1 -.1628 0.0178 0.0000

Table 4 discussed moderation effect of EI of Subordinate between EI of leader and job

satisfaction. Results suggested that EI of Subordinate moderate the relationship between EI of
leader and Job Satisfaction (β = 0.0371, p>.05), not supporting hypothesis H6.

Predictor Job satisfaction

B SE P
0.0000
Constant 3.5747 .8355
0.2641
Emotional intelligence -.2133 .1904
Mediation role of job satisfaction between Emotional Intelligence and Collaboration satisfaction

0.5851
EI of Subordinate .0765 0.1399
Int_1 0.0371 0.0316 .2427

Discussions
The main motivation to conduct our study was to examine the underlying mechanisms
by which an important component of project leader skill - EI is related to participants'
collaboration satisfaction factors in integrated project setting. To understand the underlying
mechanisms linking project leaders' EI and collaboration satisfaction we developed an EI
model for IPD leaders first of all. Using this qualified framework of EI competence for leaders
in project setting, we investigated the relationship between EI and collaboration satisfaction
and inferred that this relationship may be mediated by Job satisfaction. In addition, we modified
the model in order to better understand leadership behaviors in construction organizations as
well as proposed collaboration satisfaction criteria for tapping into IPD process. We argued
that leadership styles are variables that imply an emotional bond connecting EI and
collaboration satisfaction. As such, project leaders with high degree of EI tend to create more
open communication atmosphere and choose positive leadership behaviors by creating an
emotional encouragement for team members, which further promote participants' collaboration
satisfaction. To be more detailed, considering the leadership style (transformational leadership)
had impacts on the outcomes. Job satisfaction does not mediate the relationships of EI with
PSC, ES, and IS, indicating that leaders high on EI may not integrate emotional consideration
and apply incentive mechanism. In addition, as emotional leaders prefer to develop harmonious
personal relationship, their EI still had influence on the RS.

Theoretical Implication
This study contributed to the project management literature by integrating EI theory and a
leadership model in the context of collaboration. The results of our study showed that
leadership style link the relationship between project leaders, EI and collaboration satisfaction.
This advanced our understanding of EI and leadership style in creating participants'
collaboration satisfaction. Many scholars suggested to pay more attention on project leadership
rather than project management in the complex project settings (Kaulio, 2008; Tyssen, et al.,
2014).. Our findings suggested that integrated project participants should consider appointing
project managers who have high levels of EI since they can be expected to select appropriate
leadership styles to promote collaboration. To make efficient use of human resource in IPD,
leaders with high team management know better how to apply emotional support and incentive
motivation to improve collaboration satisfaction. It is easier for transformational leaders to
promote participants' satisfaction in view of the emphasis on relationship in integrated projects.
In addition, charisma of TFL had the most significant influence on outcomes, indicating that
setting an example to subordinates is essential.
Finally, we note that top management should be aware of the importance of project
managers' leadership styles equipped with EI, which can serve to boost collaboration
satisfaction in integrated projects. As such, project leaders should be encouraged to adopt
positive leadership styles such as transformational leadership styles for a better collaboration
culture. In this regard, providing appropriate training programs for project leaders regarding to
 Mediation role of job satisfaction between Emotional Intelligence and Collaboration satisfaction

their EI and leadership styles can help to create satisfied collaborated atmosphere among
participants in IPD.
Limitations and future directions
We acknowledge three limitations to our study that suggest potential fruitful
opportunities for future research. First, we acknowledge that the generalizability of results may
be limited because our data were collected from limited organizations in the one country:
Pakistan. In this case, it might be useful to see if our findings replicate in other national settings.
Second, while we justified particular mediators (job satisfaction) of the EI–Collaboration
satisfaction relationship, we also acknowledge that additional mechanisms might exist through
which EI may impact on project success. Future research might therefore consider other
mechanisms, such as work environment characteristics and personal dispositions. Finally, we
point out that we focused on divers worker sample; in this regard, researchers in the future
might wish to examine the role of EI among specific employees and its impact on
collaborations satisfaction.
Our study has other several limitations that should be taken into account, and some of
these points are opportunities for future study. First, the results of our study is general but might
be affected by national culture since data were collected from one country Pakistan. In this
case, it might be useful to see if our findings replicate in other national culture. Second,
common method bias could be concern since some questionnaires are self-report. The risk of
common method variance leads to inflating or suppressing the magnitude of relationships being
investigated. The result showed that there was no single factor that could account for the
majority of the covariance in the measures, which indicated that this sample was not influenced
by this problem. Finally, while we justified leadership style as moderator of the EI
collaboration satisfaction relationship, we also acknowledge that additional mechanisms might
exist trough which EI may impact on collaboration satisfaction. Future research might consider
other mechanisms, such as trust, communication and team building.

Appendix
Emotional Intelligence (for Project Manager) and also for
subordinates.
The 16 items developed by Wong and Law (2002) were used to measure the EI of the incumbents.
The response format was a 7-point Likert-type scale. Reliability estimates (coefficient alphas) for the
four dimensions of self-emotion appraisal, uses of emotion, regulation of emotion, and others’
emotion appraisal.

Rate the following items by your own perception based on your recently completed
project.
Strongly Disagree Somewhat Neither Somewhat Agree Strongly
disagree Disagree Disagree or Agree Agree
Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Sr. ID Items SD D SWD NDA SWA A SA

 Mediation role of job satisfaction between Emotional Intelligence and Collaboration satisfaction

no Self-emotion appraisal (SEA)

I have a good sense of why I have certain
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 EI-SEA-1 feelings most of the time.
I have good understanding of my own
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2 EI-SEA-2 emotions.
3 EI-SEA-3 I really understand what I feel. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4 EI-SEA-4 I always know whether or not I am happy. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Others’ emotion appraisal (OEA) SD D SWD NDA SWA A SA
I always know my friends’ emotions from their
5 EI-OEA-1 behavior.
6 EI-OEA-2 I am a good observer of others’ emotions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I am sensitive to the feelings and emotions of
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7 EI-OEA-3 others.
I have good understanding of the emotions of
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 EI-OEA-4 people around me.
Use of emotion (UOE) SD D SWD NDA SWA A SA
I always set goals for myself and then try my
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9 EI-UOE-1 best to achieve them.
10 EI-UOE-2 I always tell myself I am a competent person. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11 EI-UOE-3 I am a self-motivated person. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I would always encourage myself to try my
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12 EI-UOE-4 best.
Regulation of emotion (ROE) SD D SWD NDA SWA A SA
I am able to control my temper and handle
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
13 EI-ROE-1 difficulties rationally.
I am quite capable of controlling my own
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14 EI-ROE-2 emotions.
I can always calm down quickly when I am
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
15 EI-ROE-3 very angry.
16 EI-ROE-4 I have good control of my own emotions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Job Satisfaction
18-Item scale developer by Brayfield and Rothe (1951) used to measure Job satisfaction of
employees.
Rate the following items taking in view your job environment that how much you are
satisfied according to below given likert scale.
Strongly Disagree Neither Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
or Agree
Disagree

1 2 3 4 5

ID Items SD D NDA A SA

JS-0 There are some conditions concerning my job that could be improved. 1 2 3 4 5
 Mediation role of job satisfaction between Emotional Intelligence and Collaboration satisfaction

JS-1 My job is like a hobby to me. 1 2 3 4 5

JS-2 My job is usually interesting enough to keep me from getting bored. 1 2 3 4 5
JS-3 It seems that my friends are more interested in their jobs. 1 2 3 4 5
JS-4 I consider my job rather unpleasant. 1 2 3 4 5
JS-5 I enjoy my work more than my leisure time 1 2 3 4 5
JS-6 I am often bored with my job. 1 2 3 4 5
JS-7 I feel fairly well satisfied with my present job. 1 2 3 4 5
JS-8 Most of the time I have to force myself to go to work. 1 2 3 4 5
JS-9 I am satisfied with my job for the time being. 1 2 3 4 5
JS-10 I feel that my job is no more interesting than others I could get. 1 2 3 4 5
JS-11 I definitely dislike my work. 1 2 3 4 5
JS-12 I feel that I am happier in my work than most other people. 1 2 3 4 5
JS-13 Most days I am enthusiastic about my work. 1 2 3 4 5
JS-14 Each day of work seems like it will never end. 1 2 3 4 5
JS-15 I like my job better than the average worker does 1 2 3 4 5
JS-16 My job is pretty uninteresting. 1 2 3 4 5
JS-17 I find real enjoyment in my work. 1 2 3 4 5
JS-18 I am disappointed that I ever took this job. 1 2 3 4 5

Transformational leadership (From Leader)

13-Items used to measure transformational leadership which are published in a paper Witten
by Aga, Noorderhaven, and Vallejo (2016). The five-point Likert-type scales were anchored
on the extremes of 1 (not at all) to 5 (frequently, if not always).
Rate the following questions about your leadership experience according to following Likert
scale.
Not at all Rarely Some time Often Frequently if not always
1 2 3 4 5

ID Items NAA R ST O FINA

TL_1 Team members have complete faith in me. 1 2 3 4 5
I provide appealing images about the project to my
1 2 3 4 5
TL_2 team.
I enable team members to think about old problems
1 2 3 4 5
TL_3 in new ways.
I give personal attention to a team member who
1 2 3 4 5
TL_4 seems neglected.
Team members are proud of being associated with
1 2 3 4 5
TL_5 me.
I let my team know that I am confident that the
1 2 3 4 5
TL_6 project goals will be achieved.
Mediation role of job satisfaction between Emotional Intelligence and Collaboration satisfaction

I provide team members with new ways of looking

1 2 3 4 5
TL_7 at puzzling things.
I help each member of the team to develop his/her
1 2 3 4 5
TL_8 strengths.
I make the team members feel good to be around
1 2 3 4 5
TL_9 me.
TL_10 I help team members find meaning in their work 1 2 3 4 5
I get team members to rethink ideas that they had
1 2 3 4 5
TL_11 never questioned before.
I am attentive to the unique concerns of each team
1 2 3 4 5
TL_12 member.
I show my team that I am optimistic about the
1 2 3 4 5
TL_13 future of the project.

Transformational leadership (From subordintes)

13-Items used to measure transformational leadership which are published in a paper Witten
by Aga et al. (2016). The five-point Likert-type scales were anchored on the extremes of 1
(not at all) to 5 (frequently, if not always).
Rate the following questions about your leadership experience according to
following Likert scale.
Not at all Rarely Some time Often Frequently if not always
1 2 3 4 5

ID Items NAA R ST O FINA

TL_1 Team members have complete faith in us. 1 2 3 4 5
He provides appealing images about the project to
1 2 3 4 5
TL_2 my team.
He enables team members to think about old
1 2 3 4 5
TL_3 problems in new ways.
He gives personal attention to a team member who
1 2 3 4 5
TL_4 seems neglected.
Team members are proud of being associated with
1 2 3 4 5
TL_5 him.
He let the team know that he is confident that the
1 2 3 4 5
TL_6 project goals will be achieved.
He provides team members with new ways of
1 2 3 4 5
TL_7 looking at puzzling things.
He helps each member of the team to develop his/her
1 2 3 4 5
TL_8 strengths.
He makes the team members feel good to be around
1 2 3 4 5
TL_9 him.
TL_10 He help team members find meaning in their work 1 2 3 4 5
He gets team members to rethink ideas that they had
1 2 3 4 5
TL_11 never questioned before.
Mediation role of job satisfaction between Emotional Intelligence and Collaboration satisfaction

He is attentive to the unique concerns of each team

1 2 3 4 5
TL_12 member.
He shows the team that he is optimistic about the
1 2 3 4 5
TL_13 future of the project.

Collaboration Satisfaction
12 items scale is used for collaboration satisfaction. Developed by Lianying Zhang,
Tingting Cao, Yu Wang, and published in International Journal of Project
Management (2017). I have mailed to the writer of that paper for the provision of
questionnaire so provide me which are as follows.
The purpose of this part is to assess cooperative performance. At present, some
developed countries have started to promote a new transaction mode-IPD (Integrated Project
Delivery) model based on multiparty contract and BIM (Building Information Model)
technology, Participants can be involved at the conceptual stage and cooperate, make common
decisions, share knowledge and share risks in the whole project life cycle for the common
benefit, so as to improve project efficiency and successfully achieve project objectives. As our
application of the IPD model is still in its infancy, please select a project you have been
involved in (if possible, projects that require collaboration with multiple participants). And
according to your experience and evaluation criteria to measure the project if the IPD model
project cooperation satisfaction index.

1=Very dissatisfactory; 2 = dissatisfactory; 3 = just satisfactory; 4 = satisfactory; 5 = very

satisfactory

ID Items 1 2 3 4 5
CS-A 1 Satisfaction Degree: 1 2 3 4 5
CS-1 Cost satisfaction 1 2 3 4 5

CS-2 Quality Satisfaction 1 2 3 4 5

CS-3 Progress satisfaction 1 2 3 4 5

CS-B 2 Efficiency satisfaction 1 2 3 4 5

CS-4 Timely service 1 2 3 4 5

CS-5 Timely update (information) 1 2 3 4 5

CS-6 Cooperative coordination 1 2 3 4 5

CS-C 3 Relationship satisfaction: 1 2 3 4 5

CS-7 Cooperative Trust 1 2 3 4 5

CS-8 Cooperation reliability 1 2 3 4 5

CS-9 Cooperative stability 1 2 3 4 5

Mediation role of job satisfaction between Emotional Intelligence and Collaboration satisfaction

CS-D 4 Satisfaction degree of interest: 1 2 3 4 5

CS-10 Risk sharing 1 2 3 4 5

CS-11 Profit sharing 1 2 3 4 5

CS-12 incentive fairness 1 2 3 4 5

References

Aga, D. A., Noorderhaven, N., & Vallejo, B. (2016). Transformational leadership and project success:
The mediating role of team-building. International Journal of Project Management, 34(5),
806-818.
Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of applied psychology,
35(5), 307.
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.

Arnold, Kara A, & Loughlin, Catherine. (2013). Integrating transformational and participative versus
directive leadership theories: Examining intellectual stimulation in male and female leaders across
three contexts. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 34(1), 67-84.
Ashkanasy, Neal M, & Daus, Catherine S. (2002). Emotion in the workplace: The new challenge for
managers. The Academy of Management Executive, 16(1), 76-86.
Ashkanasy, Neal M, & Tse, Barry. (2000). Transformational leadership as management of emotion: A
conceptual review.
Avey, James B, Wernsing, Tara S, & Luthans, Fred. (2008). Can positive employees help positive
organizational change? Impact of psychological capital and emotions on relevant attitudes
and behaviors. The journal of applied behavioral science, 44(1), 48-70.
Bar-On, Reuven. (1997). The emotional intelligence inventory (EQ-I): Technical manual. Toronto,
Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
Bar-On, Reuven. (2004). The Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): Rationale, description and
summary of psychometric properties.
Barczak, Gloria, Lassk, Felicia, & Mulki, Jay. (2010). Antecedents of team creativity: An examination
of team emotional intelligence, team trust and collaborative culture. Creativity and
Innovation Management, 19(4), 332-345.
Barling, Julian, Slater, Frank, & Kevin Kelloway, E. (2000). Transformational leadership and emotional
intelligence: An exploratory study. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 21(3),
157-161.
Bass, Bernard M, & Avolio, Bruce J. (1990). Developing transformational leadership: 1992 and
beyond. Journal of European industrial training, 14(5).
Bass, Bernard M, & Avolio, Bruce J. (1997). Full range leadership development: Manual for the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire: Mind Garden.
Bass, Millard, Kravath, Richard E, & Glass, Leonard. (1986). Death-scene investigation in sudden
infant death. New England Journal of Medicine, 315(2), 100-105.
Bono, Joyce E, Foldes, Hannah Jackson, Vinson, Gregory, & Muros, John P. (2007). Workplace
emotions: The role of supervision and leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1357.
Bono, Joyce E, & Ilies, Remus. (2006). Charisma, positive emotions and mood contagion. The
Leadership Quarterly, 17(4), 317-334.
Mediation role of job satisfaction between Emotional Intelligence and Collaboration satisfaction

Bowling, Nathan A. (2007). Is the job satisfaction–job performance relationship spurious? A meta-
analytic examination. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71(2), 167-185.
Bratton, Donna L, & Henson, Peter M. (2011). Neutrophil clearance: when the party is over, clean-up
begins. Trends in immunology, 32(8), 350-357.
Brief, Arthur P. (1998). Attitudes in and around organizations (Vol. 9): Sage.
Brown, F William, & Moshavi, Dan. (2005). Transformational leadership and emotional intelligence:
A potential pathway for an increased understanding of interpersonal influence. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26(7), 867-871.
Butler, Colleen J, & Chinowsky, Paul S. (2006). Emotional intelligence and leadership behavior in
construction executives. Journal of Management in Engineering, 22(3), 119-125.
Bygballe, LE, Swärd, AR, & Vaagaasar, AL. (2016). Coordinating in construction projects and the
emergence of synchronized readiness. International Journal of Project Management, 34(8),
1479-1492.
Chiocchio, François, Forgues, Daniel, Paradis, David, & Iordanova, Ivanka. (2011). Teamwork in
integrated design projects: Understanding the effects of trust, conflict, and collaboration on
performance. Project Management Journal, 42(6), 78-91.
Densten, Iain L. (2002). Clarifying inspirational motivation and its relationship to extra effort.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23(1), 40-44.
El Asmar, Mounir, Hanna, Awad S, & Loh, Wei-Yin. (2013). Quantifying performance for the
integrated project delivery system as compared to established delivery systems. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 139(11), 04013012.
Fisher, Elliott S, Wennberg, David E, Stukel, Thrse A, Gottlieb, Daniel J, Lucas, F Lee, & Pinder, Etoile
L. (2003). The implications of regional variations in Medicare spending. Part 2: health
outcomes and satisfaction with care. Annals of internal medicine, 138(4), 288-298.
Foster, Colm, & Roche, Frank. (2014). Integrating trait and ability EI in predicting transformational
leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 35(4), 316-334.
Gardner, Lisa, & Stough, Con. (2002). Examining the relationship between leadership and emotional
intelligence in senior level managers. Leadership & organization development journal, 23(2),
68-78.
Goleman, Daniel. (1996). Vital lies, simple truths: The psychology of self deception: Simon and
Schuster.
Goleman, Daniel. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence: Bantam.
Heimbürger, Markku, & Dietrich, Perttu. (2012). Identifying the basis of collaboration performance in
facility service business. Facilities, 30(11/12), 504-516.
Iyer, KC, & Jha, KN. (2005). Factors affecting cost performance: evidence from Indian construction
projects. International journal of project management, 23(4), 283-295.
Judge, Timothy A, & Kammeyer-Mueller, John D. (2012). Job attitudes. Annual review of psychology,
63, 341-367.
Judge, Timothy A, Thoresen, Carl J, Bono, Joyce E, & Patton, Gregory K. (2001). The job satisfaction–
job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological bulletin,
127(3), 376.
Kärnä, Antti, Voeten, Marinus, Little, Todd D, Alanen, Erkki, Poskiparta, Elisa, & Salmivalli, Christina.
(2013). Effectiveness of the KiVa Antibullying Program: Grades 1–3 and 7–9. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 105(2), 535.
Kellett, Janet B, Humphrey, Ronald H, & Sleeth, Randall G. (2006). Empathy and the emergence of
task and relations leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(2), 146-162.
Kent, David C, & Becerik-Gerber, Burcin. (2010). Understanding construction industry experience and
attitudes toward integrated project delivery. Journal of construction engineering and
management, 136(8), 815-825.
Mediation role of job satisfaction between Emotional Intelligence and Collaboration satisfaction

Lenferink, Sander, Tillema, Taede, & Arts, Jos. (2013). Towards sustainable infrastructure
development through integrated contracts: Experiences with inclusiveness in Dutch
infrastructure projects. International Journal of Project Management, 31(4), 615-627.
Li, Terry HY, Ng, S Thomas, & Skitmore, Martin. (2013). Evaluating stakeholder satisfaction during
public participation in major infrastructure and construction projects: A fuzzy approach.
Automation in construction, 29, 123-135.
Lin, Yi-chun, Chen, Angela Shin-yih, & Song, Yi-chen. (2012). Does your intelligence help to survive in
a foreign jungle? The effects of cultural intelligence and emotional intelligence on cross-
cultural adjustment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36(4), 541-552.
Locke, Edwin A. (1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational behavior and human performance,
4(4), 309-336.
Lok, Peter, & Crawford, John. (2004). The effect of organisational culture and leadership style on job
satisfaction and organisational commitment: A cross-national comparison. Journal of
management development, 23(4), 321-338.
Mayer, Helmut, Holst, Jutta, Schindler, Dirk, & Ahrens, Dieter. (2008). Evolution of the air pollution in
SW Germany evaluated by the long-term air quality index LAQx. Atmospheric Environment,
42(20), 5071-5078.
Mayer, JD. (1999). Instruction Manual for the MSCEIT: Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence
Test. Multi-Health Systems, Toronto.
Mayer, John D, & Salovey, Peter. (2007). Mayer-Salovery-Caruso emotional intelligence test: Multi-
Health Systems Incorporated.
McColl-Kennedy, Janet R, & Anderson, Ronald D. (2002). Impact of leadership style and emotions on
subordinate performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(5), 545-559.
Mersino, Anthony. (2013). Emotional intelligence for project managers: The people skills you need to
achieve outstanding results: AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn.
Müller, Ralf, & Turner, Rodney. (2007). The influence of project managers on project success criteria
and project success by type of project. European management journal, 25(4), 298-309.
Nzekwe-Excel, Chinny, Nwagboso, Chris, Georgakis, Panos, & Proverbs, David. (2010). Integrated
framework for satisfaction assessment in construction sector. Journal of Engineering, Design
and Technology, 8(2), 168-188.
Parker, Stephen K, & Skitmore, Martin. (2005). Project management turnover: causes and effects on
project performance. International Journal of Project Management, 23(3), 205-214.
Pheng, Low Sui, & Chuan, Quek Tai. (2006). Environmental factors and work performance of project
managers in the construction industry. International journal of project management, 24(1),
24-37.
Phua, Florence TT, & Rowlinson, Steve. (2004). How important is cooperation to construction project
success? A grounded empirical quantification. Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, 11(1), 45-54.
Pieterse, Corné MJ, Van der Does, Dieuwertje, Zamioudis, Christos, Leon-Reyes, Antonio, & Van
Wees, Saskia CM. (2012). Hormonal modulation of plant immunity. Annual review of cell and
developmental biology, 28.
Rahman, M Motiar, & Kumaraswamy, Mohan M. (2011). Multicountry perspectives of relational
contracting and integrated project teams. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 138(4), 469-480.
Ryan, James C, & Tipu, Syed AA. (2013). Leadership effects on innovation propensity: A two-factor
full range leadership model. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 2116-2129.
Salovey, Peter, & Mayer, John D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, cognition and
personality, 9(3), 185-211.
Sunindijo, Riza Yosia, Hadikusumo, Bonaventura H, & Ogunlana, Stephen. (2007). Emotional
intelligence and leadership styles in construction project management. Journal of
management in engineering, 23(4), 166-170.
Mediation role of job satisfaction between Emotional Intelligence and Collaboration satisfaction

Turner, Rebecca, & Lloyd-Walker, Beverley. (2008). Emotional intelligence (EI) capabilities training:
can it develop EI in project teams? International Journal of Managing Projects in Business,
1(4), 512-534.
Tyssen, Ana K, Wald, Andreas, & Spieth, Patrick. (2014). The challenge of transactional and
transformational leadership in projects. International Journal of Project Management, 32(3),
365-375.
Wanous, John P, Reichers, Arnon E, & Hudy, Michael J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: how good are
single-item measures? Journal of applied Psychology, 82(2), 247.
Weiss, Howard M. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction: Separating evaluations, beliefs and
affective experiences. Human resource management review, 12(2), 173-194.
Weiss, Howard M, & Beal, Daniel J. (2005). Reflections on affective events theory The effect of affect
in organizational settings (pp. 1-21): Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Weiss, Howard M, & Cropanzano, Russell. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of
the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in
organizational behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews, Vol. 18.
Weiss, Howard M, Suckow, Kathleen, & Cropanzano, Russell. (1999). Effects of justice conditions on
discrete emotions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(5), 786.