Relative Importance of Emotional Intelligence’s Dimensions in Contributing to Dimensions of Job Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Career in service industry is emotional labor intensive, which turns performance of the employees into undesired status who are not emotionally intelligent. To put light on this issue the present study scrutinizes the significant contributor from four dimensions of emotional intelligence to three dimensions of job performance individually as well jointly. Data gathered from 292 bankers through instrument adopted from literature, regression results revealed that self emotional appraisal, others emotional appraisal, regulation of emotions and use of emotions significantly contribute task performance, counterproductive work behaviors and organizational citizenship behaviors individually as well as jointly. The use of emotions remained significant when included with other dimensions of emotional intelligence in the hierarchical regressions model after controlling for age and gender, whereas regulation of emotions lost its significance. In organizational citizenship behaviors maximum variation was observed due to emotional intelligence’s dimensions as compare to the other dimensions of job performance. Banks’ management could use these findings for recruitment, training and promotions of employees. Limitations and future suggestions are presented in later part.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".