The Impact of Emotional Intelligence on Job Performance via the Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction

Recent research findings are accumulating evidence that Emotional Intelligence (EI) is associated positively with important work manners. However, the research on Emotional Intelligence is mainly conducted in business field and in western countries; therefore there is a shortage of research on Emotional Intelligence in the context of public sector in Jordan. The aim of this study is to explore the influence of Emotional Intelligence on job performance and job satisfaction as well as the mediating role of job satisfaction on job performance among the administrative employees of the University of Jordan. The present study is based on Mayer and Salovey’s (2000) ability model of Emotional Intelligence. A sample consisted of 354 employees from the University of Jordan who completed self-report questionnaire. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used in order to test the proposed hypotheses. The research found that Emotional Intelligence is positively correlated with job performance and job satisfaction. The findings of this study also confirm the mediatory role of job satisfaction in relationship between Emotional Intelligence and job performance. It is suggested that Emotional Intelligence can be used to predict job performance and job satisfaction, therefore the understanding of Emotional Intelligence theory and its applications can be promoted for managerial and human resource practices throughout public sector organizations.


Introduction
External influences such as economic and social change urge universities to look for new ways to maximize their workers' potential.Since the performance of each team member affects the performance of the entire university, HR managers make constant efforts in order to improve the performance of their employees as the university's most valuable asset.As a result, universities are applying various practices to increase work outcomes, loyalty and commitment.They organize social activities for employees, open channels for communication, provide opportunities for advancement, introduce margin benefits and acquire the latest technology; these are only the few from a plethora of tactics used by universities to enhance employees' performance (Masa'deh et al., 2014).
Emotional Intelligence (EI) has been the subject of much attention among managers, educators and scholars (Daus & Ashkanasy, 2005) based on the belief that EI improves the performance of employees.EI defines as the ability of emotion and their relationships to recognize the meanings, and to reason and problem-solve on the basis of them, which involves in assimilate emotion-related feelings, capacity to perceive, emotions understand the emotions' information, and manage them (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2000, p. 267).In the beginning of the 1990s, John Mayer formulated the basis upon which the concept of EI was constructed and in 1995 Daniel Goleman offered to use EI as an alternative construct to IQ to predict employees' performance.Since then and till the present day, academic interest in the construct has been growing and researchers specializing in the field of Organizational Psychology have been exploring different angles and conceptualizations of EI (e.g.Goleman, 1995;Mayer et al., 2000;Perez, Petrides, & Furnham, 2004) as a factor affecting different work outcomes including job performance and job satisfaction (e.g.O' Boyle & Ernst, 2011;Beck, 2013;Shooshtarian, Ameli, & Aminilari, 2013).
Job Satisfaction (JS) is defined as "the extent to which people like (satisfaction) or dislike (dissatisfaction) their work" (Spector, 1997, p. 2).As a concept, it is an integral component of organizational life and it plays an important role in the relationship between employees and management.It is thus of high interest for researchers in a modern world environment who assert that there should be solid steps taken to improve JS as means to enhance a variety of work aspects like corporate loyalty and job performance (Ealias & Jijo, 2012).Job Performance (JP) describes the degree an employee performs the job well and contributes to the outcomes and success of a company (Shooshtarian et al., 2013).In an academic context, improving the performance of staff is essential in order to provide high quality of learning experience and service for the students.Indeed, universities are constantly pursuing goals to sustain and raise the standards of services in an increasingly competitive environment (Ministry of Higher Education, 2015).As with any organization, improving the performance of employees is a desired outcome and it would have benefits that extend beyond the organization, contributing to the development of the country.Therefore, studying the relationship between EI, JS and JP among employees of the University of Jordan (UJ) will be useful in informing HR managers with insights regarding how JP can be improved.
UJ is the biggest university in terms of number of students in the country and as a leading university it contributes to social and economic development of the nation.It was chosen in the current study because it enrolls the highest number of students and employs a high number of staff.According to the Ministry of Higher Education's annual statistics; in the school year 2012/2013, the University had 3,078 administrative staff of whom 34% were female employees and this is the group that was selected for the research (Ministry of Higher Education, 2013).
In general, there is a visible tendency to pay more attention to the thinking processes rather than the emotions in public sector organizations (Meisler & Vigoda-Gadot, 2010).This reveals the potential to focus further on the emotional side of work-related activities within public sector.At the same time, there is an increasing quantity of research on EI and its relationship with important job outcomes, in which the role of EI in affecting JP of individuals has been demonstrated (e.g.Goleman, 1995;Bar-On & Parker, 2000).Researchers are interested in understanding the ways in which emotions affect JP of employees and they emphasize the need for research focused on emotions of personnel within the organization (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993;Muchinsky, 2000;cited in Moon & Hur, 2011).Research by McEnrue, Groves and Shen (2010) found that emotions influence what and how people think, consequently influencing their decisions and behavior in different situations, thus affecting strongly what happens at work.The study concluded that emotions, feelings, and moods are essential components of social life in general and particularly in organizations.Lopes, Grewal, Kadis, Gal, & Salovey (2006) also found a positive relationship between EI and JP.
In summary, it can be concluded there is a much opportunity to contribute to applied research on the relationship between EI and JP through studying it in the context of Jordanian public sector.

Literature Review
This section is concerned with providing a broad overview of the existing studies on EI, JP and JS.It reviews previous studies on the three constructs -EI, JS and JP -including those studying the relationships between them.

Emotional Intelligence
According to Beck (2013), philosophical considerations of the relations between thoughts and emotions can be traced back to over 2000 years ago.Between 1900 and 1969, research on intelligence and emotions in the domain of psychology were relatively separate.The term "EI" itself first appeared in the literature in the 1960s, which was used back then "in an incidental fashion" (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2004, p. 198).In the early 1970s, studies were increasingly being conducted on the relationship between emotions and cognitive processes (Beck, 2013).By the 1980s, social scientists "had identified a number of human capacities involved in identifying and understanding emotions" (Mayer & Salovey, 1990).The term EI appeared in the literature several times before it was introduced by Mayer and Salovey and conceptualized as a topic of scientific study between 1990 and 1994.In 1995 Daniel Goleman popularized EI as a construct through his book "EI: Why it can matter more than IQ" and since 1997, through a considerable amount of peer-reviewed research conducted on the topic, the concept has developed and grown into a more refined construct (Beck, 2013).
Since 1990, there have been studies of EI as an important human mental ability that enables humans to think rationally about emotions and to use emotions to enhance thought.This new concept changed the way people perceived emotions and intelligence, and the relationship between the two.It is based on the rationale that when people can identify, understand, express and manage their own emotions, they are better able to understand their own behaviors and other people's behaviors by understanding their emotions; which results in improved interactions with others and reflects in positive outcomes in their lives (Beck, 2013).Additionally, EI has a positive correlation with the social effectiveness of human beings (Mayer & Solovey, 2000): the higher the levels of EI, the better the social relationships, particularly in jobs where human interaction is involved.
The research done over the past two decades reveals the multidimensional nature of the concept.In the relationship between EI and positive work-related outcomes, effect sizes were found to greatly vary and many have revealed different variables to be at play between EI and these outcomes, highlighting the possibility of EI to mediate or be mediated through other variables in predicting work-related outcomes.Nowadays, EI is considered among recruiters, educators, managers and human resource professionals at any workplace when hiring new employees due to the perceived benefit to the organization.

Job Satisfaction
Most non-retired adults spend a considerable amount of their time at work and whether they are satisfied or unsatisfied with what they do affects the outcomes of their actions.JS is thus an important element of wellbeing as research suggests.Employees' JS is one of main concerns for managers in many modern organizations (Westover & Taylor 2010;cited in Sarwar & Aburge, 2013).At the same time, researchers specializing in the field of business and psychology continuously endeavor to find ways to improve employees' JS levels because it can dramatically affect the performance and the success of organizations (Shooshtarian et al., 2013).As a result, over the past years, a considerable amount of studies on the nature and aspects of JS has been generated.However, there remains strong interest in developing research on the concept and understanding the effects of JS.Locke (1976Locke ( , p. 1304) ) proposed the definition of JS that is widely supported in organizational research, as "a positive or pleasurable emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one's job or job experiences".According to Spector (1997), JS has to do with how content an employee is with his or her job, describing it as the set of several aspects causing this sense of satisfaction or dissatisfaction.It was found that whether or not an employee is satisfied with their job depends not only on the nature of the job and what comes with it, but also on the expectations that the employee might hold beforehand (Hussami, 2008;cited in Anis, Kashif-ur-Rehman, Ijaz-Ur-Rehman, Khan, & Humayoun, 2011).Those expectations are based on and reflect a unique combination of intrinsic elements like needs, beliefs, values and desires that every person has (Sempane, Rieger, & Roodt, 2002).People view and evaluate their job through the prism of these valuable factors (Sempane et al., 2002); therefore, people feel content or satisfied with their jobs if there is a match between these personal factors and expectations and what the job offers in reality (Aziri, 2011).
Hackman and Oldham developed a model of such job characteristics called the Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS) in 1975.This instrument is widely used as a framework to study how particular job characteristics affect job outcomes, including JS (Hackman & Oldham, 1975).According to Hackman and Oldham's theory, "positive personal and work outcomes (high internal motivation, high work satisfaction, high quality performance and low absenteeism and turnover) are obtained when three "critical psychological states are present for a given employee" (Hackman & Oldham, 1975, p. 160).These three states are: Experienced meaningfulness of the work(which reflects the degree to which the jobholder experiences the work as intrinsically meaningful and can present his or her value to other people and/or the external environment) and is enhanced primarily by three of the core dimensions: skill variety, task identity, and task significance); Experienced responsibility for the outcome of the work(the degree to which the worker feels he or she is accountable and responsible for the results of the work) which increases when a job has high autonomy; Knowledge of Results of the work activities (the degree to which the jobholder knows how well he or she is performing) which is increased when a job is high on feedback.Thus, the JDS offers measures of a number of personal, affective reactions or feelings a person experiences from performing the job.JS is considerate to be one of the work outcomes and is defined as "an overall measure of the degree to which the employee is satisfied and happy with the job" (Hackman & Oldham, 1975, p. 162).
Many factors exist that affect the levels of a person's JS; for example: atmosphere, promotions, job security, teamwork, organizational structure, compensation, benefits, (Brown, 2007;Qasim, Cheema, & Syed, 2012), job security, efficiency in work, quality of tasks, the clarity of the job requirements, working hours and working conditions such as temperature, ventilation, lighting and noise (Arnold & Feldman, 1996;Qasim et al., 2012).Other aspects that may also influence JS include leadership and social relationships, the challenging nature of the job, employee involvements and empowerment (Friedlander & Margulies, 1969;Qasim et al., 2012).On the other hand, JS influences different aspects of organizational life such as employee's productivity, loyalty and absenteeism, number of accidents (Aziri, 2011); organizational commitment (Mohammad & Eleswed, 2013).This indicates the importance of JS in organizations.
In view of the above discussion, JS can be described to be a multidimensional construct (Hulin & Judge, 2003;cited in Judge & Klinger, 2007;Aziri, 2011) which is related to personal perception and evaluation of a job (Sempane et al., 2002).The higher the level of JS, the more likely workers will maintain a positive attitude toward their jobs (Wang & Feng, 2003;Sarwar & Aburge, 2013).It can be concluded that JS is an important variable in organizational behavior and it plays a significant role in many theories of individual behavior in organizational sciences (Judge & Klinger, 2007).Research on JS indeed has practical applications for the enhancement of organizational efficiency and effectiveness (Aziri, 2011).

Job Performance
JP plays an important role for the growth and development of an organization, where an individual's JP contributes highly to overall organizational effectiveness and success (Korkaew & Suthinee, 2012).JP is one of the most important dependent variables of interest to educators, the government, businesses and society (Rotundo & Rotman, 2002).It is an important construct in human resource studies as it is seen as the end-result of the work of Human Resource personnel who are always finding way to enhance employees' performance; such as promoting positive attitudes, capacity building, introducing incentives, increasing employee satisfaction, increasing the level of responsibility over the job, and other ways to intrinsically motivate employees (Tseng & Huang, 2011).The effects of positive HR practices on performance have been confirmed in many studies (e.G. Patterson, 1997;Wright, Gardner, Moyniham, & Allen, 2005).
JP basically describes actions and behaviors of an employee that contribute to the achievement of organizational goals (Rotundo & Rotman, 2002).There is a wide range of aspects that can help to determine an employee's JP levels in an organization.According to Baytos and Kleiner (1995), work quality, punctuality, performance, and productivity can be used to accurately measure JP.Other aspects are human resources, training effectiveness, productivity, and judgment (Gatewood & Field, 1998).Robbins (2001) clarified how job outcomes, behavior, and personal characteristics are the main ingredients used to measure JP holistically.Moreover, Campbell, Campbell and Chia (1998) pointed out that in a highly interdependent group, staff with high motivation would perform better.

Emotional Intelligence, Job Satisfaction and Job Performance
Different factors have been found to contribute to a better or worse individual performance among employees in organizations.These factors range from personal issues, personal life to organization culture, job content and tasks, manager's attitude financial reward (Saeed, Mussawar, Rab Nawaz Lodhi, Iqbal, & Nayaband Yaseen, 2013).Other factors include work engagement, organizational justice, self-efficacy, and work engagement (Korkaew, 2012).Also, JP levels can be affected by the changes in a person's psychological state and mood (Zickar & Slaughter, 1999;Boon, 2012).Another point of view is that employees' promotions, salary and growth also depend on their JP.For employees to develop and get promoted they have to perform at their very best; so a good salary could lead to low performance, but it could also lead to improved performance, which in its turn leads to an increase in salary.A meta-analysis of the EI-JP relationship (O'Boyle & Ernst, 2011) found significant effects of EI on JP with the ability to predict an average of14% of the change in JP.
The level of JS is a strong indicator of withdrawal behavior, intention to quit, turnover and organizational commitment (e.G. Shields & Ward, 2001;Böckerman & Ilmakunnas, 2009).The relationship between JS and JP has been heavily debated (Judge, Bono, Thoreson, & Patton, 2001).This discussion intensified in the late seventies (Christen, Iyer, & Soberman, 2006) and it was logically assumed that the more employees are satisfied, the better their performance is.Some studies suggest that JS has a significant impact on the performance of an individual in a company (Judge et al., 2001).Other studies propose that there are variables acting as mediating or moderating factors between JS and JP, concluding that positive emotions, for instance, would generate higher performance (Vandenabeele, 2009).Similarly, a meta-analysis conducted on 312 samples representing 54,417 respondents (Judge et al., 2001) found an average correlation between JS and JP of r=0.3.At the same time, Sy et al. (2006) studied the relation among 187 employees from food industry and found that employees' EI was positively associated with JS and performance.Meanwhile, others believe that the relationship between the JS and JP is weak and non-existent (Locke, 1976;Spector, 1985).The conclusion drawn from Jae Vanden Berghe's study in 2011 was that generally there is only a modest to weak correlation between JS and JP and that the causal direction is inconclusive.
There is insufficient research on the relationship between EI, JS, and JP.Therefore, conducting this study in the context of UJ will contribute to developing better understanding of the implications of EI in organizational settings.Moreover, this study is interested in investigating a relationship that has not been extensively studied in previous work and that is the mediating effect of JS in relationship between EI and JP.Recent studies show growing interest in conducting studies on EI, which has led to an improvement in the conception of EI and its demonstrated ability to predict important work outcomes, and continue to reveal a wide range of potential applications of EI.Nevertheless, the majority of these studies were focused on the applications of EI within the business field, in addition to the findings being mixed.There are currently several different definitions and measuring instruments of EI which indicates vast opportunity to continue developing a better understanding of EI.Therefore, it is anticipated that conducting the study on EI in a public sector organization in Jordan may add to the body of knowledge and develop deeper understanding of EI and how it affects JS and JP.

Research Methodology and Hypotheses Development
This section contains description of research's methodology.It provides the procedural definitions of the constructs under study and presents the research model and hypotheses.It also discusses the development of the measures and scales used to test the hypotheses, present main sample characteristics and summarize the data collection and analysis procedures.

Procedural Definitions
The study is a quantitative research study applying deductive method of inference.Therefore there is a need to operationalize and determine the measures of EI, JP and JS to test the hypotheses.Procedural definitions of the constructs adopted in this study to measure the variables are presented below.

Emotional Intelligence
The present study uses Mayer and Salovey's four-branch ability model of EI, according to this model EI is defined as "ability to perceive emotions, to access and generate emotions so as to assist thought, to understand emotions and emotional knowledge, and to reflectively regulate emotions so as to promote emotional and intellectual growth" (Mayer & Salovey, 1997, p. 4).

Job Satisfaction
JS in this research is defined as "an overall measure of the degree to which the employee is satisfied and happy with the job" (Hackman & Oldham, 1974, p. 10).

Job Performance
JP in the present study is measured using Tseng and Huang's (2011) six-item scale which is based on Katz and Kahn's conceptualization of the construct in terms of in-role and extra-role behavior in accordance with the Role Behavior Theory.In their model, in-role behavior is "behavior that falls under standard rules in the workplace of an organization," and extra-role behavior represents "the self-evaluative and democratic behavior that is accepted within the organization" (Tseng & Huang, 2011, p. 6119).

Research Model and Hypotheses
The focus of this research is to examine how EI (the independent variable) impacts employees' JP (the dependent variable) directly and indirectly by JS as a mediated variable.Figure 2 displays the research's model.
To test the model above, the researchers formulated the following hypotheses: H 0.1 : There is no statistically significant impact of Emotional Intelligence on job performance with the employees of the University of Jordan.
H 1.1 : There is a statistically significant impact of emotional intelligence on job performance with the employees of the University of Jordan.H 0.2 : There is no statistically significant impact of emotional intelligence on job satisfaction with the employees of the University of Jordan.
H 1.2 : There is a statistically significant impact of emotional intelligence on job satisfaction with the employees of the University of Jordan.
H 0.3 : There is no statistically significant impact of job satisfaction on job performance with the employees of the University of Jordan.
H 1.3 : There is a statistically significant impact of job satisfaction on job performance with the employees of the University of Jordan.H 0.4 : Job satisfaction does not play a mediating-effect role between Emotional Intelligence and job performance with the employees of the University of Jordan.
H 1.4 : Job satisfaction does play a mediating-effect role between Emotional Intelligence and job performance with the employees of the University of Jordan.
If the four alternative hypotheses are true, then it can be concluded that EI does in fact impact JS, both directly and through increased JS as a mediator.

Research Measures and Data Collection Instruments
In order to attain the goals mentioned above, a questionnaire that measures the levels of the three constructs was designed.These constructs have been used and validated in previous studies and were adapted to local context to measure EI, JP and JS.In addition, a number of demographic and background information has been collected.All questions in the scales measuring the three constructs (EI, JP, JS) were scored on a five-point Likert-scale ranging from 1 representing the strongest negative attitude towards the statement (strongly disagree) to 5 representing the most positive attitude towards the statement (strongly agree).The demographic variables were all entered as categorical or ordinal.For instance, gender was entered a two-category variable with 1 = male and 2=female.Age was entered as an ordinal variable where, 1 = 20 -Less than 30, 2= 30 -Less than 40, 3 = 40-Less than 50, and 4= More than 50.Also, for educational level, the researcher used a coding approach that assigns.
Furthermore, elements used to measure each of the constructs were obtained from prior research.These elements provided a valued source for data gathering and measurement as their reliability and validity have been verified through previous research and peer reviews.EI was characterized and studied in terms of four dimensions: Perception and appraisal of emotions (PE), Facilitating thinking with emotions (FE), Understanding emotions (UE), and Regulation and management of emotions (RE).EI construct was adapted from Groves et al. ( 2008) by including 24 items: six for PE, six for FE, six for UE, and six for RE.Further, EI measurement instrument was validated by Turnipseed and Vandewaa (2012).JS construct was derived from the scale first developed by Hackman and Oldham (1974) in terms of five dimensions measured using 14 items; two items for pay (PY), two items for job security (JC), three items for social (SC), three items for supervisor (SU), and four items for growth satisfaction (GS); and was validated by Fried and Ferris (1987).JP variable was measured using six items which were drawn from Tseng and Huang (2011).
The questionnaire was translated to the Arabic language using back-forward translation.The translated version was later reviewed by specialists to eliminate inconsistencies.The translation process was carried out by a scientist working in the field of research whose native language is Arabic.Table 1 shows the measured constructs and the items measuring each construct.The instrument was reviewed by seven academic staff at the school of business in order to identify problems with wording, content, and question ambiguity.After some changes were made based on their suggestions, the modified questionnaire was piloted on ten administrative employees who are working at the university.Based on the feedback from the pilot study, minor edits were introduced to the survey questions.Understanding emotions (UE) UE1: When a coworker of mine performs poorly on a project, I can usually recognize whether he or she feels angry, embarrassed, guilty, or some other feeling (e.G. "wounded pride").
UE2: I can watch other people interact and recognize the feelings they hold toward each other.
UE3: I am acutely aware of subtle cues at work that express how people feel (e. G.Where they sit, when they are silent, etc.).
UE4: I can usually tell when a coworker's Emotional response to a situation is due to his/her unique personality instead of his/her cultural background.

Emotional Intelligence Measurement
The Emotional Intelligence self-description inventory (EISDI), which was developed by Groves et al. (2008), was chosen as the measure for EI for a number of reasons  2008) by including 24 items: six for PE, six for FE, six for UE, and six for RE.An example of the kinds of questions it asks: "I can accurately identify a range of emotions that I feel from day to day" (PE), "I often use how I feel about a problem to define the attention I give to it" (FE), "I can usually detect subtle changes in the emotions of my co-workers" (UE), and "I am usually able to transmit a sense of enthusiasm about a work project onto others" (RE).Further, EISDI was validated by Pachulia and Henderson (2009) and by Vance, Groves, White and Hess (2013).

Job Satisfaction Measurement
JS measure was derived from the Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS) which is job assessment instrument developed by Hackman and Oldhamin (1974).JS is one of the dimensions measured by the JDS.In this instrument, JS is conceptualized as a combination of feelings about different elements of a job.Five sub-scales provide separate measures of JS and consist of 14 items.These sub-scales included being satisfied with pay and other compensation -2 items, job security -2 items, peers and co-workers ("social") -3 items, supervision -3 items, and opportunities for development ("growth" satisfaction) -4 items.After measuring employees' satisfaction with different elements of a job, a composite score of the items is calculated as a measure of overall satisfaction.
This instrument was selected for the purpose of the study because, firstly, it is in agreement with most typical categorization of 5 faceted JS concept (Judge & Klinger, 2007) mentioned above and also because it meets the criteria for JS measurement suggested by Balzer, Kihm, Smith, Irwin, Bachiochi, Robie, Sinar, and Parra (1997) who stated that measurement of JS should include main aspects of JS, be simple to administer and complete, be easy to score and interpret, apply to all jobs in all organizations, show evidence that they are measuring what they are supposed to measure in a consistent fashion, be useful for identifying problems, choosing solutions and evaluating changes.The validity of JS measurement instrument as part of JDS was confirmed by Fried and Ferris (1987) who reviewed and conducted meta-analysis of almost 200 relevant studies employing JDS.

Job Performance Measurement
JP variable was measured using six items which were drawn from Tseng and Huang (2011).

Demographics
The research questionnaire included questions meant to collect demographic and other background information such as gender, age, educational level, and years of experience.In order to guarantee a better response, an official cover letter was accompanying each questionnaire to explain the research objectives, assure of the confidentiality of the information they provided, emphasize the voluntary aspect of participation and while highlighting to respondents the importance of their participation in the study.

Population
The population chosen to be studied was the administrative employees of the University of Jordan.According to the Ministry of Higher Education Statistics for the School Year 2013/2014Jordan University administrative staff consists of 3078 employees (Ministry of Higher Education, 2013).

Procedure and Sample Characteristics
Empirical data for this study was collected through paper-based survey in Jordan.Three hundred and sixty UJ Administrative staff' took part in this study by filling out the self-administered questionnaire.The sample size for this study was determined based on the rules of thumb for using SEM within AMOS 20.0 in order to obtain reliable and valid results.Kline (2010) suggested that a sample of 200 or larger is suitable for a complicated path model.Furthermore, taking into account the complexity of the model which considers the number of constructs and variables within the model and after eliminating the incomplete surveys, our sample size of 354 respondents meets the recommended guidelines of Kline (2010), Krejcie and Morgan (1970) and Pallant (2005) by exceeding the recommended sample of 346 on the population of 3500.
A nonprobability sampling method followed in this study (convenience sampling) due to the large sample size needed in light of the limitations in time and level of accessibility to the population.Thus, the respondents were selected on the basis of availability and willingness to participate in the study.In alignment with ethics principles, all potential participants were asked to provide explicit informed consent: they were approached by the researcher in their place of work who explained the nature and purpose of the study, showed them the approval letter from the University, and asked if they were interested to participate in the study.All questionnaires were collected during the second semester of the academic year of 2014/2015.Table 2 below summarizes the demographic data of the respondents.
As shown in Table 2, the sample of respondents for this study consisted of slightly more females than males, most of them with five or more years and more of experience, the overwhelming majority(78.6%)agedmore than 30 years old, and around a half holds bachelor and master degrees.

Description of Data
Items of the research constructs for the current study -namely EI, JP, and JS -were numbered from 1 to 44.EI was measured in terms of four dimensions: perception and appraisal of emotions (items 1-6), facilitating thinking with emotions (items 7-12), understanding emotion (items 13-18), and regulation and management of emotion (items 19-24).JS construct was measured in terms of five dimensions: pay (items 25-26), job security (items 27-28), social (items 29-31), supervisor (items 32-34), and growth satisfaction (35-38 items).JP was numbered from 39-44.After the measures were developed, the items were randomly jumbled to reduce respondent bias and increase the reliability of the measure.
The questionnaire was programmed on SPSS and all responses were entered into the SPSS data file by entering the actual number circled by the respondent.Mean composite scores were calculated and used in the subsequent analyses.

Data Analysis Techniques
The current study used two main statistical tools to analyze the survey data.Regarding the survey analysis methods, a general descriptive analysis was conducted using SPSS version 20, where the descriptive analysis provided means, frequencies and standard deviations to summarize the respondents' demographic characteristics, in addition to initial data examination such as reliability tests.Then, the data was analyzed by Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) using AMOS package, particularly through a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural model analysis.Further, the relationships between EI and JP mediated by JS were tested empirically using SEM techniques.
Indeed, in order to describe the responses and thus the attitude of the respondents toward each question they were asked in the survey, the mean and the standard deviation were estimated.While the mean shows the central tendency of the data, the standard deviation measures the dispersion which offers an index of the spread or variability in the data (Sekaran & Bougie, 2009).This research uses SEM approach based on AMOS 20.0 to study the causal relationships and to test the hypotheses between the observed and latent constructs in the proposed research model.SEM can be divided into two sub-models: a measurement model and a structural model.While the measurement model defines relationships between the observed and unobserved variables, the structural model identifies relationships among the unobserved/latent variables by specifying which latent variables directly or indirectly influence changes in other latent variables in the model (Byrne, 2001;Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2010).Furthermore, the structural equation modeling process consisted of two components: validating the measurement model and fitting the structural model.While the former is accomplished through confirmatory factor analysis, the latter was accomplished by path analysis with latent variables (Kline, 2005).Using a two-step approach assures that only the constructs retained from the survey that have good measures (validity and reliability) will be used in the structural model (Hair et al., 2010).

Research Results
After presenting the research in section three, this section presents the research results.The section begins by presenting descriptive statistics of the data followed by the measurement model and some informative indices (unidimensionality, reliability and content convergent and discriminant validity).After this, a description of the structural model is presented and finally results of the hypotheses testing.

Descriptive Statistics
All the 44 items were examined for their means, standard deviations, skewness, and kurtosis.The descriptive statistics presented below in Table 3 indicate a positive disposition towards the items.The standard deviation (SD) values ranged from 0.05324 to 1.11394, indicating a narrow spread around the mean.Also, the mean values of all items were greater than the midpoint (2.5) and ranged from 2.8947 (PY2) to 3.9913 (RE6).However, after careful assessment by using skewness and kurtosis, the data were found to be normally distributed.Indeed, skewness and kurtosis were normally distributed since all of the values were inside the adequate ranges for normality (i.E.-1.0 to +1.0 for skewness, and less than 10 for kurtosis) as recommended by Kline (2010).Furthermore, the ordering of the items in terms of their means values, and their ranks based on three ranges (i.E.1-2.33 low; 2.34 -3.67 medium; and 3.68 -5 high) are provided.Table 4 shows different types of goodness of fit indices in assessing this study initial specified model.It demonstrates that the research constructs fits the data according to the absolute, incremental, and parsimonious model fit measures, comprising chi-square per degree of freedom ratio (x²/df), Incremental Fit Index (IFI), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA).The researchers examined the standardized regression weights for the research's indicators and found that all indicators had a high loading towards the latent variables except FE4 = 0.35, SC3 = 0.47, and GS4 = 0.42.Moreover, since these items did not meet the minimum recommended value of factor loadings of 0.50 (Newkirk & Lederer, 2006;Hair et al., 2010;Kline, 2010), they were all removed and excluded from further analysis.
Therefore, the measurement model was modified and showed a better fit to the data (as shown in Table 4).For instance, x²/df and RMSEA did change for the final model, the IFI = 0.84, TLI = 0.81, and CFI = 0.83 indicated better fit to the data after removing the low factor loading items.

Measurement Model
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to check the properties of the instrument items.Prior to analyzing the structural model, a CFA based on AMOS 20.0 was conducted to first consider the measurement model fit and then assess the reliability, convergent validity and discriminant validity of the constructs (Arbuckle, 2009).The outcomes of the measurement model are presented in Table 4, which encapsulates the standardized factor loadings, measures of reliabilities and validity for the final measurement model.

Unidimensionality
Unidimensionality is the extent to which the study indicators deviate from their latent variable.An examination of the unidimensionality of the research constructs is essential and is an important prerequisite for establishing construct reliability and validity analysis (Chou, Chang, Cheng, & Tasi, 2007).Moreover, in line with Byrne (2001), this research assessed unidimensionality using the factor loading of items of their respective constructs.
Table 5 shows solid evidence for the unidimensionality of all the constructs that were specified in the measurement model.All loadings were above 0.50, except FE4, SC3, and GS4; which is the criterion value recommended by Newkirk and Lederer (2006).These loadings confirmed that 41 items were loaded satisfactory on their constructs.

Reliability
Reliability analysis is related to the assessment of the degree of consistency between multiple measurements of a variable, and could be measured by Cronbach's alpha coefficient and composite reliability (Hair et al., 1998).Some scholars (e.G. Bagozzi & Yi, 1988) suggested that the values of all indicators or dimensional scales should be above the recommended value of 0.60.Table 5 indicates that all Cronbach's alpha values for the ten variables exceeded the recommended value of 0.60 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988) demonstrating that the instrument is reliable.Furthermore, as shown in Table 5, composite reliability values ranged from 0.66 to 0.86, and were all greater than the recommended value of more than 0.60 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988) or greater than 0.70 as suggested by Holmes-Smith (2001).Consequently, according to the above two tests, all the research constructs in this study are considered reliable.As shown above, since the measurement model has a good fit; convergent validity and discriminant validity can now be assessed in order to evaluate if the psychometric properties of the measurement model are adequate.

Content, Convergent, and Discriminant Validity
Although reliability is considered as a necessary condition of the test of goodness of the measure used in research, it is not sufficient (Creswell, 2009;Sekaran, 2003;Sekaran & Bougie, 2013), thus validity is another condition used to measure the goodness of a measure.Validity refers to which an instrument measures is expected to measure or what the researcher wishes to measure (Blumberg, Cooper, & Schindler, 2005).Indeed, the items selected to measure the ten variables were validated and reused from previous researches.Therefore, the researchers relied upon in enhancing the validity of the scale was to benefit from a pre-used scale that is developed from other researchers.In addition, the questionnaire items were reviewed by seven academic staff at the school of business in UJ.The feedback from the chosen group for the pre-test contributed to enhanced content validity of the instrument.Moreover, in order to enhance the content validity of the instrument, ten administrative employees were asked to give their feedback about the questionnaire, thus confirming that the knowledge presented in the content of each question was relevant to the studied topic.
In addition, as convergent validity test is necessary in the measurement model to determine if the indicators in a scale load together on a single construct; discriminant validity test is another main one to verify if the items developed to measure different constructs are actually evaluating those constructs (Gefen, Straub, & Boudreau, 2000).As shown in Table 6, all items were significant and had loadings more than 0.50 on their underlying constructs.Moreover, the standard errors for the items ranged from 0.068 to 0.128 and all the item loadings were more than twice their standard error.Discriminant validity was considered using several tests.First, it could be examined in the measurement model by investigating the shared average variance extracted (AVE) by the latent constructs.The correlations among the research constructs could be used to assess discriminant validity by examining if there were any extreme large correlations among them which would imply that the model has a problem of discriminant validity.If the AVE for each construct exceeds the square correlation between that construct and any other constructs then discriminant validity is occurred (Fronell & Larcker, 1981).As shown in Table 6, this study showed that the AVEs of all the constructs were above the suggested level of 0.50, implying that all the constructs that ranged from 0.50 to 0.61 were responsible for more than 50 percent of the variance in their respected measurement items, which met the recommendation that AVE values should be at least 0.50 for each construct (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988;Holmes-Smith, 2001).Furthermore, as shown in Table 6, discriminant validity was confirmed as the AVE values were more than the squared correlations for each set of constructs.Thus, the measures significantly discriminate between the constructs.

Structural Model and Hypotheses Testing
Following the two-phase SEM technique, the measurement model results were used to test the structural model, including paths representing the proposed associations among research constructs.Further, in order to examine the structural model it is essential to investigate the statistical significance of the standardized regression weights (i.e.t-value) of the research hypotheses (see Table 7); and the coefficient of determination (R²) for the research endogenous variables as well.The coefficient of determination for JS, and JP were 0.29, and 0.38 respectively, which indicates that the model does moderately account for the variation of the proposed model.The three hypotheses were supported by the data.The results showed that EI did have a direct significant influence on JP (α = 0.216, t-value = 4.334, p< 0.01), and EI on JS (α = 0.537, t-value = 11.957,p< 0.01), and the latter on JP (α = 0.470, t-value = 9.434, p < 0.01), supporting H 1.1 , H 1.2 and H 1.3 .
To test the mediating effects of JS, the study looked at both the direct effect of EI on JP and its indirect effect through the mediatory path of JS.It was found that EI affects JP significantly both directly (α = 0.216) and indirectly (α = 0.252), resulting in a total effect size of α = 0.468 (see Table 8).Thus, the data supported partial mediation.

Discussion
The main purpose of this study was to conduct an empirical exploration of relationship between EI and JS, EI and JP and JP and JS among the employees of JU.The research found support for the four alternative hypotheses, indicating strong potential for the model in explaining the variation in JP in terms of EI and JS.The passages below will discuss each hypothesis.In particular, this section discusses the findings of the study presented in the previous section, presents limitations, implications and recommendations for further empirical research and draws the conclusion.

Relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Job Performance
Support for H 1.1 suggests that EI significantly and directly predicts JP.It indicates that increased EI in itself is associated with higher JP.The findings of the present study agree with past research (Law & Kenneth, 2008;Shooshtarian et al., 2013) that revealed links between EI and JP showing that employees with higher level of EI are demonstrating higher level of JP.This opens venues to a new perspective on workplace HRM practice.It provides useful insight into how to address a common concern among HR professionals and that is enhancing the performance of employees (Mayer & Salovey, 1999).EI adds value in advancing performance at the individual level, group level, and the organizational level.Mayer and Salovey (2000) suggest that EI's contribution to performance may be because EI enables "people to nurture positive relationships at work, work effectively in teams, and build social capital" (p. 1).It is highly likely that because JP "often depends on the support, advice and other resources provided by others" (p.1), and this particular relationship appeared in the data.Another possibility is that higher EI enables people to better regulate their emotions and perform more effectively under pressure and to cope with changes in a given organization.
In summary, knowing that employees who are more capable of managing and regulating how they feel influences how they perform and accomplish their duties and tasks has useful implications that will be discussed further in this section.

Relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Job Satisfaction
The current study found a significant positive relationship between EI and JS among the employees of the University of Jordan.In line with findings of previous research (Wong & Law, 2002;Sy et al. 2006;Gu leryu z et al., 2008), these results indicate that employees with higher EI to be more likely satisfied with their jobs.
Employees with high EI are more capable of understanding and managing their emotions, which enables employees to be more aware of the factors that contribute to their experience of positive and negative emotions about their jobs.This makes employees with higher EI better able to take action to address such factors and increase their JS levels.For example, employees with high EI could be better at identifying when they are beginning to feel work-related stress and this awareness of the situation could enable them to understand the causes of their stress and develop coping strategies for these stressors (Sy et al., 2006).

Relationship between Job Satisfaction and Job Performance
The results of the study confirmed the predictive value of JS regarding JP levels among the employees of UJ.
The results of the current study could contribute significantly to the debate on the JS-JP relationship for which a recent meta-analysis found mixed results and evidence of moderating factors (Judge et al., 2001;Pugno & Depedri, 2009).The relatively strong significant link between JS and JP could be due to the fact that the research participants where in jobs in which interaction with students and the general public is high.Although moderators were not explored as part of this study, magnitude of the relationship does support the conclusion proposed by Wong and Law (2001) that the emotional labor of the work moderates this relationship, a proposal that found initial support in the 2001 meta-analysis conducted by Judge et al.

Relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Job Performance via the Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction
Support for H 1.4 confirms the mediatory role of JS in the relationship between EI and JP where EI influences JP partially directly and also indirectly through increasing JS.This finding is in line with previous studies that support the relationship between JP and JS (Judge et al., 2001;Pugno & Depedri, 2009).In other words, those with higher EI perform better than those with lower EI partially because EI alone influences JP, and partially because those with higher EI are generally more satisfied with their jobs and those more satisfied with their jobs perform better than those who are less satisfied with their jobs.These findings confirm the necessity of giving concern for JS among the employees of the University of Jordan.

Recommendations and Implications
The findings of the present study that EI has a strong effect on JS and JP support the theory of Mayer et al. (2000) that EI can provide new insights into organizational behavior from a perspective of how it affects performance.EI significantly contributes to understanding of relationships in the work context (Mayer et al., 2000)."The high EI individual, most centrally, can better perceive emotions, use them in thought, understand their meanings, and manage emotions, than others" (Mayer et al., 2004, p. 210).Individuals with higher EI levels are better at communication and are more open; they find it to manage conflicts and overcome problems than to those with less EI levels.They can also direct their own behaviors better and know how to avoid negative behaviors such as violence and engaging in social troubles (Mayer et al., 2004).
The effectiveness and efficiency of an organization in reaching its goals depend on the JP of employees.An organization's overall performance comprises of each team member's performance.According to the findings of the study, JP is indeed influenced by JS and EI, both directly and indirectly through increasing JS.Therefore, it can be suggested to HR managers to include EI construct as a component in their practices and take EI into consideration in screening, hiring and capacity building aimed at improving JS and JP.The findings of this study have a number of important implications in the workplace.Understanding the theory of EI can be used for different HRM practices such as recruitment, selection, training and development.EI is an essential quality to seek in a potential employee during recruiting process.Understanding EI can help HR manager place a new employee in a position that suits his or her capabilities the best.EI can be used in predicting JP of current employees as well as it can provide insights for career development through capacity-building.EI can be used for the management and development of relationships among colleagues (Foote, 2001).It can be applied in situations in the workplace when one needs to give feedback, delegate when under pressure; and dealing with conflict and politics.Generally speaking, EI can be used for self-management, relationship management, and social awareness (Why You Need EI to Succeed, 2015).In summary, it can be recommended to develop professional EI training for employees to teach them how to be aware of their emotions and how to manage them in order to improve their JS and JP levels.

Limitations and Future Research
One limitation of the current study lay in the measurement of each of EI, JP, JS; which relied on self-reports as mentioned in Section 3. Different facets and reporting instruments of the three concepts not included in the study could have yielded in greater magnitudes of the relationships between the three and a larger explanatory power to the model.Future research may focus on exploring these relationships more holistically.Another limitation lies in the fit of the final model which was a significant improvement from the measurement model yet remained with a significant chi-square, indicating a significant difference between the specified model and the actual data.This provides direction for future research which could focus on further improving the model fit, improving our understanding of the ways in which EI and JS contribute to the prediction of JP.The significant yet limited predictive power (R 2 ) of our model indicates high potential to better understanding this relationship through incorporating additional variables and exploring factors that could moderate the relationships (for example, emotional labor, cognitive ability, and certain demographic factors).
In addition to the gaps outlined above, the current study outlines numerous areas for future research.For one, the current study should persuade Human Resources professionals on considering EI in their employee selection and hiring.Collecting such data longitudinally and linking it with more objective measures of JP could provide good data that further reveals about the model predicting JP.Moreover, researchers interested in carrying out research on the EI-JP relationship might examine possible moderating factors that may magnify or downplay the role of EI and JS in influencing JP.The degree to which EI affects different work outcomes may vary significantly with factors such as degree or type of emotional labor involved as well as other job-related and personal characteristics.Third, future research could look intothe indirect effects of EI on work-related outcomes and focus on studying the mediating and moderating role of EI.Meisler (2010) has recommended research to focus on exploring indirect effects in ways that allow the improvement of the models and a more accurate assessment of relationships.At the same time, more studies from Non-Western cultures would allow researchers to conduct cross-cultural comparisons and increase understanding of cross-cultural differences in the ways in which EI operates in influencing different work outcomes.Finally, further studies could focus on exploring the effects of EI training provided to employees on different work outcomes in organizations.

Conclusion
EI adds meaningful value to existing body of knowledge on JP and JS in public sector organizations.The present study contributes positively to the past research by reaffirming the ways in which EI affects JP and JS and gives confidence in the ability of EI to predict JP and JS in the public sector.Therefore, an awareness of EI theory and an understanding of its applications should be promoted among departments concerned with improving the performance of public sector employees.Moreover, EI adds value to HR professionals who are constantly seeking ways to advance their practice.Studies overlooking the skills needed for leaders point out the importance of ability to deal with emotions (Clutterbuck & Megginson, 1999).Consequently, new ideas, such as EI, are organically helping draw the big picture of organizational behavior.The results of the study add a new dimension that helps better understand JS and JP and how EI impacts both in the workplace in a Public Sector organization.The information about EI and its effects gives new ideas to HR management regarding the actions to take in order to improve the employees' performance and satisfaction.
EI is an ability that can be learnt and developed with practice (Mayer et al., 2004).It is known that implementing HR practices leads to improvement of organizational outcomes (Sarwar & Aburge, 2013).Therefore, introducing techniques meant to enhance EI is expected to result in greater JS and JP of individuals and hence improve the performance the whole organization.If the levels of JP and JS of the staff are improved in universities, the quality of the services of JU could improve and consequently contribute towards accomplishing the mission of the Ministry of Higher Education to develop "an educational system based on 'Excellence', powered by its human resources, devoted to high standards and social values contributing to the nation's wealth in a global 'Knowledge Economy' " (Ministry of Higher Education, 2015).Such implications are of major importance for Jordan, which relies on its highly educated population as one of the main sources of the country's economic growth.
At the same time, the study suggests that EI or the ability to recognize and understand emotions of others does not oppose rationality and logic in improving job performance, on the contrary it can be used as a complementary instrument to improve JS and JP in the public sector as suggested by Meisler and Vigoda-Gadot (2010).In conclusion, public sector organizations can definitely benefit from a better understanding of EI and its impacts on the workplace; and from integrating its added value in recruiting, hiring and capacity-building to make work processes not just more efficient, effective but also more satisfactory and fulfilling.

Facilitating
often prioritize my work tasks according to how strongly I feel about the importance of each task.FE2: I often use my excitement about a work project to focus the efforts of others involved with the project.FE3: I often use how I feel about a problem to define the attention I give to it.FE4: I listen to the feelings of other people in establishing priorities.FE5: I deliberately attempt to create a feeling conducive to effective problem solving when meeting with clients or coworkers.FE6: In deciding to go forward with a decision, I always consider how other people may feel about it.
UE5: I can usually detect subtle changes in the emotions of my coworkers.UE6: I can instantly recognize when a coworker' frustrations with a look forward to a feeling of accomplishment whenever I start a new project.RE2: I am usually able to transmit a sense of enthusiasm about a work project to others.RE3: I notice when someone is very caring and compassionate toward others at work.RE4: I am capable of calming someone down who is angry and frustrated at work.RE5: When a coworker is feeling disappointed about his/her work performance, I make an effort to offer encouraging words of support.RE6: Whenever painful events have occurred to people I know at work (i.E. Death in family, serious illness), I have expressed genuine concern and tried to help them feel better.Pay (PY) PY1: The amount of pay and fringe benefits I receive.PY2: The degree to which I am fairly paid for what I contribute to amount of job security I have.JC2: How secure things look for me in the future in this university.Social (SC) SC1: The people I talk to and work with on my job.SC2: The chance to get to know other people while on the job.SC3: The chance to help other people while at work.Supervisory (SU) SU1: The degree of respect and fair treatment I receive from my supervisor.SU2: The amount of support and guidance I receive from my supervisor.SU3: The overall quality of the supervision I receive in my work.amount of personal growth and development I get in doing my job.GS2: The feeling of worthwhile accomplishment I get from doing my job.GS3: The amount of independent thought and action I can exercise in my job.GS4: The amount of challenge in my job.with other colleagues at the university increases my work efficiency.JP2: Dealing with other colleagues at the university helps me to solve problems at work.JP3: Dealing with other colleagues at the university helps me to accomplish my work mission.JP4: Dealing with other colleagues at the university broadens my knowledge.JP5: Dealing with other colleagues at the university increases my willingness to work with others.JP6: Dealing with other colleagues at the university increases my problem solving abilities.

Table 1 .
Constructs and measurement items PE1: I can accurately identify a range of emotions that I feel from day to day.PE2: At work I can instantly tell when someone is frustrated with me.PE3: I can usually imagine what another person is feeling.PE4: I have no difficulty figuring out how much passion to demonstrate about an issue at work.PE5: I can usually tell how someone is feeling even though his/her facial expression may conflict with his/her body language.PE6: I have no difficulty identifying how a person really feels about an issue despite what he/she says.
. EISDI was selected because, in comparison to other EI measures, this one is a relatively short self-report measure.It is also publicly available, covers significant grounds, and is congruent with Mayer and Salovey's ability model of EI followed in the present study.Moreover, prior empirical research has shown the model can be credited with as table factor structure, strong convergent and discriminant validity estimates, and weak relationship with personality traits and social desirability relative to other measures(Groves et al., 2008).Grooves et al. (2008)developed the EISDI tool in accordance with Mayer and Salovey's ability model of EI; that is to say that the EISDI instrument was characterized and studied in terms of four dimensions: perception and appraisal of emotions (PE), facilitating thinking with emotions (FE), understanding emotion (UE), and regulation and management of emotion (RE).The Emotional Intelligence construct was adapted from Groves et al. (

Table 2 .
Demographic data for respondents

Table 3 .
Mean, standard deviation of scale items

Table 4 .
Measurement model fit indices

Table 5 .
Properties of the final measurement model

Table 6 .
AVE and square of correlations between constructs Diagonal elements are the average variance extracted for each of the ten constructs.Off-diagonal elements are the squared correlations between constructs.

Table 7 .
Summary of proposed results for the research model

Table 8 .
Mediating effect of job satisfaction