Towards emotional intelligence and quality of work life: Improving the role of work attitude

Abstract This study aims to examine whether the main job attitudes (job satisfaction, job involvement, employee engagement, organizational commitment, and perceived organizational support) mediate the relationship between emotional intelligence and Quality of Work Life (QWL) or not. This study employed a survey design involving employees from various industries at various levels around Indonesia. We distributed 400 questionnaires to the respondents, and the response rate was 81%. Path analysis using SmartPLS 3.0 was used to check the validity and reliability of the questionnaires. Findings. Findings confirmed that employee satisfaction, employee involvement, and perceived organizational support mediated emotional intelligence and quality of work-life. However, employee engagement and organizational commitment did not mediate the relationship between emotional intelligence and the quality of work-life. Limitations. Our study covered a relatively small scope; thus, it is suggested that further studies involve more respondents and regions. Uniqueness. This research explained the mediation effect of major job attitudes based on the Robbins Model, and this was the first time the model was tested in Indonesia.


PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT
QWL is a balance between work and family among employees. This balance is essential for employees to deal effectively with work and family demands. Quality of Work Life (QWL) plays a critical role for every company. QWL emphasizes the company's financial and nonfinancial growth. In addition, QWL can serve companies accelerate technological changes, rapid changes in attitudes, lifestyles, and social institutions, as well as productivity. The close relationship between QWL and employee satisfaction is confidential as one of the main work attitudes in corporate workplaces such as employee engagement, employee involvement, POS, and organizational commitment. Thus, it can be predicted that all major work attitudes affect QWL. The findings confirm that employee satisfaction, involvement, and perceived organizational support can maximize emotional intelligence and quality of work life. However, employee engagement and organizational commitment are not strong enough to bridge the relationship between emotional intelligence and quality of work life. Limitations. Our study covers a relatively small scope; future further research involves more respondents and regions.

Introduction
The Quality of Work Life (QWL) plays an essential role for every company. QWL emphasizes the company's financial and non-financial growth (Dagger, 2015). Moreover, QWL can serve companies to accelerate technological change, rapidly shifting attitudes, lifestyles, and social institutions (Newton et al., 1979), and productivity (Ghasemizad & Mohammadkhani,). QWL is defined as the balance between work and family among employees. This balance is essential for employees to deal effectively with work demands and family demands (Md-Sidin et al., 2010). QWL has some variables as its predictors, including the nature of work, pay and benefits, time dimension, workplace condition, organizational structure, and others (Newton et al., 1979); in its later development, they are categorized as employee satisfaction. The close connection between QWL and employee satisfaction is classified as one of the major job attitudes in the workplace (Robbins & Judge, 2013). Thus, it can be predicted that all major job attitudes influence QWL.
The relationship among Job satisfaction and Quality of Work life can be justification to relate to other major attitudes in Robbins model. Thus, it is assumed that QWL affects major job attitudes, including satisfaction, job involvement, employee engagement, organizational commitment, and perceived organizational support (Robbins & Judge, 2013). Even though no single model depicts the relationship between each variable of the major job attitudes and QWL, such relationships can be found in many studies. Variables representing the relationship between employee satisfaction and QWL include working from home, working on the weekends, schedule flexibility, and others (Andrade & Westover, 2018). Dhamija et al. (2018) explain the relationship between QWL and employee satisfaction experienced by many employees in Indian industries. At the same time, Andrade and Westover (2018) examine the relationship between QWL life and job satisfaction in employees from 37 countries. QWL also has a positive relationship with job involvement-the two variables are found to play a significant role in mediating the relationship between transglobal leadership and employee performance (Hermawati & Mas, 2017). A study results by Smeltzer et al. (2017) reveals the influence of job involvement on QWL in the United States. Another study by Hseih et al. (2009) shows that work and personal life conflict has led to a strong intention to quit jobs. Thus, QWL and job involvement correlate, and both variables influence employee outcomes. Job involvement also correlates with QWL within a High-performance Work System (HPWS) (Huang et al., 2016). The next evidence tries to relate QWL and job involvement through parental and family involvement (Wang et al., 2020).
Employee engagement influences QWL (Alvi et al., 2014). Employee engagement is the mediator between work-life balance and turnover intention. A study in two Malaysian big cities shows a reverse relationship between work engagement and QWL (Jaharuddin & Zainol, 2019). Employee engagement significantly impacts QWL directly and indirectly (Iqbal et al., 2017). Noor () confirms that perceived work-life balance satisfaction reduces the intention to leave, and job satisfaction and organizational commitment partially mediate the relationship between work-life balance and the intention to leave. QWL is always relevant to tackling problems related to lack of engagement, absenteeism, and other problems related to low employee performance (Garg & Rani,).
QWL is the consequence of organizational commitment. As the main tool to improve an emotional or inner agreement, QWL associates communal beliefs, values, trust, and bonds between employees and employers (Yeo & Li, 2013), where trust can be considered a commitment. QWL can also be observed through a lack of commitment (Garg & Rani,). The relationship between QWL and organizational commitment can be predicted as antecedents and consequences (Aruldoss et al., 2020;Soelton et al., 2021). In support of Aruldoss et al. (2020), Badawy et al. () also state that good QWL creation at the workplace and organizational commitment can be explained through gender as moderation. QWL could be the source of employee commitment to the organization and intention to stay (Agus & Selvaraj,). Thus, evidence shows the close relationship between QWL and organizational commitment, yet it is still unclear among lecturer professionals in Malaysia (Farid et al.,).
Many researchers have studied the relationship between Perceived Organizational Support (POS) and QWL. The relationship can happen through transformational leadership (Linda & Fitria,). QWL shown through work-life advantages and policies, work-family culture, and others, has been influenced by POS (Baral & Bhargava, 2010). Ghasemizad and Mohammadkhani () strengthen previous studies by stating that POS and QWL have affected employee productivity in Fars Province, Iran. POS influences QWL through work-family facilitation and work-family conflict (Wattoo et al.,), and POS implicitly influences QWL (Jin & Tang, 2021).
These major job attitudes result from how employees manage their emotions. Managing emotions relates to emotional intelligence. The Affective Event Theory by Robbins and Judge (2013) explains the relationship between emotional intelligence and major job attitudes. Emotional reactions, both positive and negative, will lead to job satisfaction and job performance (Robbins & Judge, 2013).
The major job attitudes are the consequence of emotional intelligence. Firstly, emotional intelligence has a significant influence on employee engagement. The expressed and additional emotional, energic, or affective action is categorized as engagement (Macey & Schneider, 2008); a noticeable and exclusive subsists of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral factors can also be categorized as engagement (Shuck & Wollard, 2010). Autonomy and self-efficacy as the emotional intelligence dimensions can also be considered engagement (Merino-Tejedor et al., 2018). Emotional intelligence has been correlated to job satisfaction and burnout (Barreiro & Treglown, 2020;Lee, 2017), an opposite term of employee engagement. Thus, employees who consider themselves emotionally, physically, and cognitively engaged (Grant, 2019) have positive emotional experiences and feelings of well-being (Robertson & Cooper, 2010), experience emotional exhaustion and vigor, and cynicism and dedication (Sun & Bunchapattanasakda, 2019). Engagement is the consequence of emotional connectivity between leaders and subordinates (Osborne & Hammoud, 2017).
Second, emotional intelligence correlates with job satisfaction. Emotional intelligence relates to life satisfaction (including job satisfaction) through social connectedness (Olasupo et al., 2021). Then, emotional intelligence could be interconnected with life satisfaction by affecting balance and depressiveness (Moroń, 2019). Moreover, emotional intelligence has been correlated with life satisfaction in the general community (Palmer et al., 2002), and employee intelligence correlates to life satisfaction (including job satisfaction) (Ain et al., 2021). Wen et al. (2019) mention how emotional intelligence influences job satisfaction through surface acting and deep acting. Also, emotional intelligence could influence job satisfaction and burnout through the way employees regulate their emotions (Lee, 2017;Rohman et al., 2022;Soelton et al., 2021).
Third, emotional intelligence has impacted organizational commitment. Many researchers in Malaysia have tested the relationship between emotional intelligence and organizational commitment (Masrek et al., 2015). Emotional intelligence has influenced organizational commitment through self-awareness, self-management, motivation, empathy, and relationship management (Alavi et al., 2013). Another research proves how emotional intelligence, transactional leadership, transformational leadership, and organizational commitment have correlated with each other (Noor, ;Nordin, 2012). Then, emotional intelligence significantly influences project performance through commitment (Zhu et al., 2021). Thus, to strengthen previous research, the influence of organizational commitment on trust could be moderated by emotional intelligence as found in employees in Jakarta and Bandung, Indonesia (Utami et al., 2014). Aghdasi et al. (2011) mention how emotional intelligence impacts organizational commitment with occupational stress and job satisfaction as the mediating variable.
Fourth, emotional intelligence correlates to job involvement, although the relationship is not mentioned explicitly. Nevertheless, the relationship can be approached through other perspectives besides job context, for example, the relationship between emotional intelligence and involvement in adolescent athletes (Cece et al., 2019). Besides the sports context, emotional well-being (as part of emotional intelligence) is necessary for involvement and engagement in the academic context (Martín et al., 2021). Also, emotional intelligence can be related to performance, especially in high performance in education through parental involvement (Vahedi & Nikdel, 2011). However, some researchers prove that emotional intelligence and parenting involvement do not significantly impact academic achievement among high school students (Khajehpour, 2011).
Fifth, emotional intelligence correlates with POS. POS reflects the relationship between emotional intelligence and job satisfaction (Wen et al., 2019). POS depends on how the organization treats their employee. Then, employees feel (the emotion) that their job becomes meaningful (Eisenberger et al., 1986). Moreover, emotional labor, which leads to job satisfaction and performance, is moderated by POS (Duke et al., 2009). Unlike previous research, emotional intelligence could be the mediating variable between POS and job satisfaction (Poon et al., 2007). Poon et al. (2007) show the relationship between individual differences and psychological contract-what is reflected by affective disposition. The affective disposition relates to the employee's experience of positive and negative emotional states (Suazo & Turnley, 2010). Zampetakis et al. (2009) explain how emotional intelligence and job satisfaction influence entrepreneurial behavior.
Although much research has proven the relationship, the consequences, and impact of the variables in this relationship is unclear. The variables have many possibilities. Therefore, it is essential to examine the relationship among variables.
The study aims to investigate the mediating effect of (1) employee engagement between emotional intelligence and QWL, (2) job satisfaction between emotional intelligence and QWL, (3) organizational commitment between emotional intelligence and emotional intelligence and QWL, and (4) job involvement between emotional intelligence and QWL, (5) Perceived organizational support (POS) between emotional intelligence and QWL.

Emotional intelligence (EI) and employee satisfaction
Emotional intelligence has impacted job satisfaction through social connectedness (Olasupo et al., 2021). Social connectedness and age have significantly mediated emotional intelligence and life satisfaction (including job satisfaction) in the countryside association of southwest Nigeria. Moroń (2019) has shown the relationship between emotional intelligence and life satisfaction (work and family life) by examining how employees manage their affect balance and depressiveness involving 211 Polish university students. Affect balance and depressiveness become the mediators from the meta-analyses results, demonstrating a stronger relationship between emotional intelligence traits, mental health, and life satisfaction (Moroń, 2019). Ain et al. (2021) explain the relationship between emotional intelligence and job satisfaction by studying 350 undergraduate private university students in Lahore, Pakistan. The research findings show that grit, life satisfaction, and emotional intelligence have a weak but positive correlation. Emotional intelligence, emotional labor, job satisfaction, and POS might be considered interrelated. This conceptual model is used by Wen et al. (2019) in studying seven five-star and four-star hotels in Guangzhou and Shenzhen, involving 279 respondents. The findings relevant to this research are that emotional intelligence has a significant impact on job satisfaction/POS, and emotional intelligence through deep acting has influenced job satisfaction/POS (Wen et al., 2019). Lee (2017) conducted a study on 169 public service organization staff in a large metropolitan area in the US. The findings confirm that emotional self-awareness has a positive and significant effect on job satisfaction, emotional regulation has a positive but insignificant effect on job satisfaction, and emotional awareness has a positive but insignificant effect on job satisfaction. Palmer et al. (2002) state that emotional intelligence has a positive and significant effect on job satisfaction, but not all dimensions of emotional intelligence correlate with life/job satisfaction in 107 newspaper employees.

Emotional intelligence (EI) and employee engagement
The other way to predict the relationship between emotional intelligence and employee engagement is through burnout, an antithesis of employee engagement (Maslach et al., 2001;Sun & Bunchapattanasakda, 2019). Lee (2017) suggests that emotional self-awareness has a positive and significant effect on job satisfaction, emotional regulation has a positive but insignificant effect on job satisfaction, and emotional awareness has a positive but insignificant effect on job satisfaction; emotional regulation does not affect job satisfaction, yet it is influenced by burnout. Moreover, employee engagement has been stated as one of the three dimensions of trait engagement, state engagement (feelings or emotions of energy, absorption), and behavioral engagement (Macey & Schneider, 2008). Macey and Schneider (2008) explains engagement as positive affectivity (PA) involving emotional dimensions. Thus, employee needs to deploy positive emotion or emotional intelligence to achieve better engagement if we use the definition of engagement from Shuck and Wollard (2010). Leadership supported by good management of emotions will lead to employee engagement (Grant, 2019). Sun and Bunchapattanasakda (2019) illustrate how employees manage opportunity as the impression of carrying the physical, emotional, and psychological capability essential to do their work, besides safety, meaningfulness, job demands, and job resource. Inspired by employee engagement at the workplace, Merino-Tejedor et al. (2018) analyze the indirect relationship between career adaptability as the moderating variable and trait emotional intelligence as the independent variable with academic engagement in 590 Spanish university students. Barreiro and Treglown (2020) support previous studies by revealing that self-motivation has a positive and significant influence on engagement, and emotion regulation has a significant but negative effect on engagement in 306 employees from various sectors in the United Kingdom.
Furthermore, emotional intelligence and employee engagement are not regularly recognized directly. Robertson and Cooper (2010) demonstrate that the first key factor is the beneficial impact that positive emotional experiences have on the growth of psychological well-being and engagement indicators. Besides psychological well-being, organizations could use self-determination theory to achieve effective engagement through a common or innate propensity to behave in healthy and effective ways (Osborne & Hammoud, 2017).

Emotional intelligence (EI) and employee involvement
Various studies have explained the relationship between emotional intelligence and employee involvement. Involvement is one of the major attitudes (Robbins & Judge, 2013). One perspective to explain how the involvement works is the parental perspective. Khajehpour (2011) confirms that emotional intelligence and parental engagement simultaneously have influenced the academic performance of 300 students in 10 secondary schools in Iran (Khajehpour, 2011). Similar to Khajehpour (2011), Vahedi and Nikdel (2011) have explored the relationship between emotional intelligence, parental engagement, and academic accomplishment in literature.

Emotional intelligence (EI) and organizational commitment
The relationship between emotional intelligence and organizational commitment has been analyzed in much research. Emotional intelligence expressed by self-awareness, self-management, motivation, empathy, and relationship management has significantly influenced the organizational commitment of 100 employees in the Ramin Thermal Power Plant, Iran (Alavi et al., 2013). Emotional intelligence can also function as a moderating variable, for example, how emotional intelligence balances the perception of organizational politics and organizational commitment (Utami et al., 2014). The other researchers believe that emotional intelligence, which represents an emotional quotient, has influenced organizational commitment. The emotional intelligence that serves as self-management and self-awareness predicts organizational commitment (Masrek et al., 2015). Then, emotional intelligence, together with transactional leadership and transformational leadership, has influenced the organizational commitment of 169 university academics in Malaysia (Nordin, 2011(Nordin, , 2012. A distinct approach to affiliating between emotional intelligence and organizational commitment comes from Zhu et al. (2021). They have explored the roles of project commitment (similar to organizational commitment) to mediate emotional intelligence and project performance. Then, different from previous research, Aghdasi et al. (2011) explain that emotional intelligence does not impact occupational stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment in 234 Iran Ministry of Science, Research and Technology employees.

Emotional intelligence (EI) and perceived organizational support (POS)
Many analyses display the affiliation between emotional intelligence and POS. Wen et al. (2019) demonstrate that emotional intelligence has influenced job satisfaction, surface acting (POS) has influenced job satisfaction, deep acting (POS) has affected job satisfaction, emotional intelligence has positively connected to surface acting, emotional intelligence has influenced deep acting, surface acting has failed to connect emotional intelligence and job satisfaction, and deep acting has successfully mediated emotional intelligence and job satisfaction. Thus, POS could be the moderator among emotional labor, job satisfaction, and job performance in 338 various industries employees (Duke et al., 2009). Poon et al. (2007) tend to see trust as the indicator of emotional intelligence that moderates the relationship between POS and job satisfaction. Suazo and Turnley (2010) explain that positive and negative affectivity, reciprocation wariness, and fairness awareness are indicators of emotional labor mediated by POS in 429 employees.

Employee engagement and quality of work life (QWL)
The Work-Life Balance (WLB) is defined as satisfaction and good management at work and at home-it represents the extent to which individual effectiveness and satisfaction at work and home have been recognized as the consequences of engagement (Garg & Rani,). WLB has been significantly influenced by job satisfaction through intention to leave in 1078 employees in three public higher education institutions in Malaysia (Noor,), and intention to leave is one of the indicators of burnout. Similar to Noor (), Jaharuddin and Zainol (2019) explore how engagement completely mediates the relationship between WLB and the intention to quit among Malaysian employees. Iqbal et al. (2017) confirm that employee engagement could be correlated to WLB through employee distrust, employee engagement has influenced WLB, and employee cynicism moderates the relationship between employees in Faisalabad, Pakistan. An early assumption of Alvi et al. (2014) shows that employee engagement as the predictor of work performance, employee turnover intentions, financial capabilities, and customer satisfaction has a "missing link," and the "missing link" is predicted by WLB. The deduction is proven in 423 bank employees in Malaysia (Alvi et al., 2014).

Employee satisfaction and quality of work life
The interaction between employee satisfaction and QWL could be described as a direct or moderate relationship. Andrade and Westover (2018) explain that WLB as the representation of QWL does not stand alone; it has another variable that influences the relationship. The other variables are intrinsic rewards, extrinsic rewards, and work relations. Furthermore, another research finds that the social and demography variables, which consist of gender, age, job experience, position at the workplace, and salary, directly influence job satisfaction through QWL. QWL splits into job consciousness and commitment, perceived job motivators, harmful workplace climate, perceived organizational culture, employee satisfaction, and endurance (Dhamija et al., 2018).

Employee involvement and quality of work life
The relationship between employee involvement and QWL could be approached through direct and indirect effects. As the representative or the effective proxy of QWL, well-being has mediated HWPS (high-performance work systems) and has directly influenced job satisfaction in 451 HR professionals or employees in Taiwan's large-sized companies (Huang et al., 2016). Involvement, especially faculty involvement, is necessary to increase significant faculty member performance in research and work-life balance in 448 faculty academic staff (Smeltzer et al., 2017). Furthermore, Hermawati et al. (2019) depict that transglobal leadership has a significant impact on employee performance directly and indirectly through QWL and involvement; transglobal leadership also directly influences involvement and QWL in Malang, Indonesia. However, different results have been found in 846 people in Malang, Batu, and Pasuruan, Indonesia, on the relationship between transglobal leadership, QWL, and involvement. In another research, Hermawati and Mas (2017) initiate the relationship between transglobal leadership, QWL, job involvement, employee achievement, and organizational citizenship behavior. The similar function between job involvement and QWL supports our study argumentation and the major job attitudes of Robbins and Judge (2013) related to job involvement and QWL. Another definition of QWL is that work interferes with personal life (WIP), and personal life interferes with work (PIW). Thus, WIP and job involvement could predict the intention to quit completely, but PIW does not affect the intention to quit. Besides that, job involvement is correlated with PIW but not with WIP (Hseih et al., 2009).

Organizational commitment and quality of work life
Organizational commitment has a positive relationship and has a significant influence on QWL. QWL could impact WLB through job stress, job satisfaction, and job commitment (Aruldoss et al., 2020). Another research explores how employee commitment arbitrates between QWL and the intention to stay. In addition, QWL itself is divided into work life/home life, work construct, work context, and work environment. Then, employee commitment consists of organizational commitment and career commitment. The intention to stay consists of the intention to stay in the current profession, hang on to this job, and continue working in the current workplace (Agus & Selvaraj,). Moreover, Badawy et al. () found out how gender has moderated perceived QWL to organizational commitment, but gender itself has not mediated perceived QWL to organizational commitment. The close connection between QWL and organizational commitment has been exposed through certain levels. The entire score of QWL consists of equal compensation, work and social condition and relevance, development of abilities, changes and improvements, insurance, constitutionalism, work and total space of life, and organizational commitment have a high correlation. Then, the 8 elements of QWL have a high to moderate correlation to affective and normative commitment and a moderate correlation to continuance commitment (Farid et al.,). The relationship between organizational commitment and QWL can be described through other variables not specifically mentioned related to organizational commitment, such as learning orientation and strategies. QWL influences learning orientation and strategies affected by sense-making (Yeo & Li, 2013). Learning orientation and strategies is contained a high learning engagement, receptive to grasp learning, and a distributed view to study collectively which has the nearest meaning to affective commitment in the organizational commitment.

Perceived organizational support and quality of work life
The relationship between perceived organizational support and QWL is not only proven in Robbins and Judge (2013) as the major job attitudes. For example, how POS and resilience lead to stress and competitiveness in pharmaceutical work at China hospitals (Jin & Tang, 2021). Even though the research does not mention QWL, the conclusion depicts the necessity of perceived organizational support to maintain pharmacists' welfare, health, and WLB (this matters advance to QWL). Another piece of evidence shows that QWL as a single independent variable influences employee productivity. Then, QWL and organizational support significantly and simultaneously influence productivity among 262 primary school teachers and administrators in Fars Province, Iran (Ghasemizad & Mohammadkhani,). The similar roles between POS and QWL, as the moderator, have correlated with each other proving the adjacency between POS and QWL.
Additionally, the relationship between POS and QWL could be illustrated by transformation leadership as the moderating variable (Linda & Fitria,). Baral and Bhargava (2010) state that workfamily enrichment can also mediate organizational interruption and WLB. Farter et al. (2010) explain that organizational interventions exist as supervisor support as one dimension of POS. Meanwhile, POS support depends on conflict between work and family and facilitation between work and family (Wattoo et al.,). Thus, the QWL definition is a broad formula that introduces an employee's job-related well-being and the degree to which work experiences are rewarding, fulfilling, and vacant of stress and other unfavorable personal issues (Md-Sidin et al., 2010). It can be concluded that the work-family clash and work-family facilitation have the closest connection or are related to each other.

Hypothesis
In summary, the hypotheses proposed in this study are as follows: H1. Job satisfaction mediates the relationship between EI and QWL. H2. Job involvement mediates the relationship between EI and QWL.

H3. Organizational commitment mediates the relationship between EI and QWL.
H4. Perceived organizational support mediates the relationship between EI and QWL. H5. Employee engagement mediates the relationship between EI and QWL.
Based on the literature review, a theoretical model of the research variables is presented in Figure 1.

Research method
Our study employed a survey design. We distributed questionnaires to four cities in Indonesia: Madiun, Banjarmasin, Pare-Pare, and Malang. The 400 questionnaires were distributed from May to July 2021 and August to September 2022. As many as 327 questionnaires were returned and filled in completely-the response rate was 81%.
We used international standard questionnaires to measure each variable. UWES (Utrecht Work Engagement Scale) was used to measure employee engagement. UWES has 17-item predictors with a 5-alternative Likert Scale. JSS (Job Satisfaction Survey) Spector 199 was used to measure job satisfaction. JSS has 36-item predictors with a 5-alternative Likert Scale. The Job Involvement Questionnaire by Greenwood Publishing was used to measure job involvement. The questionnaire has 13 item predictors (a modification from the original questionnaire) with a 5-alternative Likert Scale. Meyer and Allen (1991) inspired the questionnaire to measure organizational commitment with 9-item predictors and a 5-alternative Likert Scale. POS was measured using a survey questionnaire developed by the University of Delaware (1985) with 36-item predictors and a 5-alternative Likert Scale. QWL was measured using a survey questionnaire from Walto (1975) with 32item predictors and a 5-alternative Likert Scale. SSEIT (Schutte Self-report Emotional Intelligence) was used to measure emotional intelligence. The questionnaire has 33-item predictors and a 5-alternative Likert Scale.

Findings and discussion
Most of our respondents were Muslim (66%). Then 54% held a university undergraduate degree, 69% were between 18 to 40 years old, 59% worked in various industries, and 68% worked for 2 to 5 years. The information is presented in Table 1.

Validity and reliability test result
If the AVE score is more than 0.50, the variable is valid. If Cronbach's Alpha score is more than 0.70, the variable is reliable (Ghozali & Latan, 2015). Table 2 shows that emotional intelligence, employee engagement, employee satisfaction, employee involvement, organizational commitment, POS, and QWL scores are 0.507, 0.526, 0.512, 0.522, 0.514, 0.502, and 0.509 or more than 0.5. It means that every variable in this study is valid. Table 2 shows that the Cronbach's Alpha scores for emotional intelligence, employee engagement, employee satisfaction, employee involvement, organizational commitment, POS, and QWL are 0.757, 0.849, 0.863, 0.769, 0.763, 0.834, and 0.903 or more than 0.70. It can be concluded that  the variables are reliable (Ghozali & Latan, 2015). Moreover, the composite reliability scores for emotional intelligence, employee engagement, employee satisfaction, employee involvement, organizational commitment, POS,and QWL are 0.837,0.886,0.893,0.844,0.841,0.876,0.919, or more than 0.7. Thus, every variable is reliable (Ghozali & Latan, 2015). Table 3 Illustrates that all variables are valid, with the t-statistics results being more than 1.96 or the P-values being less than 0.05 (Ghozali & Latan, 2015). Table 4 shows the results of the outer weight with the t-statistics under 1.96 or the P-values are less than 0.05; then, it can be concluded that no construct indicators will be dropped (Ghozali & Latan, 2015). Table 5 shows the relationship categories. The R-square scores are 0.67, 0.363, and 0.19, indicating the models are strong, moderate, and weak (Ghozali & Latan, 2015). It can be concluded that employee engagement, employee satisfaction, employee involvement, and POS have scores of 0.360, 0.246, 0.289, and 0.340 and are categorized as Moderate. The organizational commitment score is 0.175 and categorized as Weak. The QWL score is 0.711 and is categorized as Strong. Table 6 shows that emotional intelligence has a positive and significant effect on all major job attitudes with a score of 0.600 (significance 0.000) for employee engagement, 0.496 (significance 0.000) for employee satisfaction, 0.538 (significance 0.000) for employee involvement, 0.418 (significance 0.000) for organizational commitment, and 0.583 (significance 0.000) for POS. Meanwhile, positive mediation is found in employee satisfaction (0.242 with a significance of 0.000), employee involvement (0.154 with a significance of 0.001), and POS (0.475 with a significance of 0.000). Employee engagement (0.038 with a significance of 0.255) and organizational commitment (0.055 with a significance of 0.112) do not mediate the relationship between emotional intelligence and QWL (Figure 2). Job satisfaction mediates between EI and QWL is supported by Ain et al. (2021), Andrade and Westover (2018), (Adi & Fithriana, How the workplace spirituality influences work engagement through organizational commitment: Evidence from the banking industry, 2020), (Robbins & Judge, 2021). Job satisfaction is one of the major attitudes of the Robbins model explains that every satisfaction from the employee will improve the work-life balance, and the work-life balance will lead to quality of work-life. The implication is how far the employee manages their emotions appropriately will lead to satisfaction at the workplace then the level of employee satisfaction will advance to increase or decrease employee quality of work life.

Inferential statistics
Job involvement mediates among EI and QWL is explained by (Robbins & Judge, 2021), (Khajehpour, 2011) (Adi, Employee Engagement Construction in Newest Condition (During 2012 Adoption to Achieve Competitiveness In Global Condition Combining With Technology Interaction And People Value, 2015). The implication from these results, every company should pay attention to how smartly the employee manage their emotions because how far employee manage their emotions will direct the employee to focus on how far they will involve themselves in the organization. Then, it will lead to the level of quality of work-life balance in daily life.
Organizational commitment is not mediated among EI and QWL even though this statement is contrary to Alavi et al. (2013), Utami et al. (2014), but supported by Aghdasi et al. (2011) andZhu et al. (2021). The unconnected mediation among EI and QWL through organizational commitment can be analyzed so that the particular of the job can be motivated these results happened. Also, the employee characteristics such as self-management, motivation, empathy, and management relationship level can explain these results.  Poon et al. (2007). The impact of the results, how the employee maintain their emotions will improve the employee organizations' perception of job goals, employee contribution, discipline level, complaint perception, etc. Thus, it will lead to a better or worst level of quality of work life at the workplace.

Conclusions and recommendations
This study revealed that employee satisfaction positively and significantly affected QWL. Employee satisfaction mediated the relationship between emotional intelligence and QWL-the finding supported previous studies by 2013), Andrade and Westover (2018), 2021), Moroń (2019), and Palmer et al. (2002).
Employee involvement had a positive and significant effect on QWL. Employee involvement mediated the relationship between emotional intelligence and QWL. This finding supported previous studies by 2019), Martín et al. (2021), and, and yet it contrasted with Khajehpour (2011). Our findings confirmed that employee satisfaction, employee involvement, and POS mediated the relationship between emotional intelligence and QWL. It is interesting to note that employee involvement mediated the relationship between emotional intelligence and QWL, although the relationship was based on other social theory approaches. However, organizational commitment did not mediate the relationship between emotional intelligence and QWL-this result is partially supported by previous studies stating that organizational commitment is partially supported. Further research related to this model, however, is necessary.
Three out of five job major attitudes mediated the relationship between emotional intelligence and QWL. The three variables were employee satisfaction, employee involvement, and POS. The other two variables, organizational commitment, and employee engagement did not mediate the relationship between emotional intelligence and QWL.