Preprint version. Later Published as Emotional intelligence as a moderator of emotional and
behavioral reactions to job insecurity in Academy of Management Review 2002, Vol. 27, No. 3,
361-372.
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AS A MODERATOR OF EMOTIONAL AND
BEHAVIORAL REACTIONS TO JOB INSECURITY
Peter J. Jordan
Griffith University
School of Management
Nathan, QLD, 4111, Australia.
Phone: 011-617-3875-3717
Fax: 011-617-3875- 3887
e-mail: Peter.Jordan@mailbox.gu.edu.au


Neal M. Ashkanasy
The University of Queensland Business School
School of Management
St.Lucia, QLD, 4072, Australia
Phone:011-618-3365-7499
Fax:011-617-3365-6988
e-mail:N.Ashkanasy@gsm.uq.edu.au


Charmine E.J. Härtel
Monash University
Department of Management
Caufield East, Vic, 3145, Australia
Phone: 011-613-9903-2674
Fax: 011-613-9903-2178
e-mail:Charmine.Hartel@buseco.monash.edu.au




Acknowledgement. This research was funded in part by a grant of the Australian Research
Council (ref A79801016).

---

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AS A MODERATOR OF EMOTIONAL AND
BEHAVIORAL REACTIONS TO JOB INSECURITY

ABSTRACT
We present a model linking perceptions of job insecurity to emotional reactions
and negative coping behaviors. Our model is based on the idea that emotional
variables explain, in part, discrepant findings reported in previous research. In
particular, we propose that emotional intelligence moderates employees’
emotional reactions to job insecurity, and their ability to cope with associated
stress. In this respect, low emotional intelligence employees are more likely than
high emotional intelligence employees to experience negative emotional reactions
to job insecurity, and to adopt negative coping strategies.

---

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AS A MODERATOR OF EMOTIONAL AND
BEHAVIORAL REACTIONS TO JOB INSECURITY
Job insecurity is defined by Hartley, Jacobson, Klandermans, and Vuuren (1991) as a
discrepancy between the security employees would like their jobs to provide and the level they
perceive to exist. Although job insecurity is a common feature of organizational life in the
developed economies of the world (Feldman, 1995), its effect on individual employees and on
organizational outcomes continues to generate controversy (e.g., see Jalajas & Bommer, 1999;
Van Dyne & Ang, 1998). Some researchers (e.g., Galup, Saunders, Nelson & Cerveny, 1997)
have reported that job insecurity results in increased work effort and work involvement, while
others (e.g., O’Driscoll & Cooper, 1996) have found that job insecurity produces stress and
decreased performance. In this article, we aim to reconcile these discrepant findings by
examining the effect of emotional and dispositional variables not previously considered. In
contrast to previous research, which has focused solely on cognitive reactions to job insecurity
(e.g. Ashford, Lee & Bobko, 1989), the present article considers how emotional reactions to job
insecurity might explain the varying outcomes associated with perceived job insecurity. First, we
examine the emotional aspects of organizational commitment and job-related tension and argue
that these have a direct influence on employees’ workplace behaviors. Then, we propose that the
dispositional variable, emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1995, 1998; Mayer & Salovey, 1997;
Salovey & Mayer, 1990) moderates the effect of these variables on individual behavior. This is
because emotional intelligence incorporates a broad range of abilities that explain the way
individuals manage emotion. Thus, we argue that emotional intelligence moderates the direct
effects of employees’ perceptions of job insecurity on emotional reactions and behaviors.
In this article, we present a two-stage model of the link between job insecurity and

---

workplace behavior that conforms to Ortony, Clore, and Collins’ (1988) theory of the cognitive
processes involved in generation of emotions. Our model, illustrated in Figure 1, is predicated
on an emotional trigger that emanates from an employee’s perception of job insecurity.
Cognitive evaluation of this perception (Ortony et al., 1988) results in two inter-related emotional
reactions: lowered affective commitment and increased job-related tension (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn,
Snoek & Rosenthal, 1964). These two emotional reactions then lead to negative behaviors,
conceptualized in our model as negative coping behaviors. As illustrated in Figure 1, we propose
that these relationships are moderated by emotional intelligence.
Figure 1: A model liking job insecurity to behavior

Our model also aligns with Fishbein and Ajzen’s (1975) theory regarding the consistency
of attitudes with behavior, and Zajonc’s (1966) notion that individuals under threat revert to
familiar strategies that determine subsequent behavior. We have, in effect, applied these general

---

frameworks to the specific instance of the link between employees’ experience of job insecurity
and the utilization of negative coping behaviors. In general, coping behaviors are intended to
reduce the stress that ensues from perceptions of job insecurity (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). We
note, however, that coping behaviors can have either negative or positive outcomes in terms of
addressing the employee’s perceptions of job insecurity. Specifically, we define negative coping
as coping behaviors that are either unsuccessful or serve only to avoid or to temporarily reduce
perceptions of job insecurity, thereby instituting a dysfunctional cycle.
Finally, we argue that emotional intelligence is a moderator (see Baron & Kenny, 1986)
of affective reactions to job insecurity, and that this interaction may explain the contradictory
findings in the research to date. Mayer & Salovey (1997, see also Salovey & Mayer, 1990)
define emotional intelligence as the ability to detect and to manage emotional cues and
information. Emotional intelligence incorporates a number of abilities including the ability to be
aware of own and other’s emotions, to be able to manage those emotions and to understand the
complex relationships that can occur between emotions and likely emotional transitions (Mayer
& Salovey, 1997). We expand on these abilities later in this article and outline their contribution
to managing perceptions of job insecurity, but note at this point that our central proposition is
that employees with high emotional intelligence are better equipped than employees with low
emotional intelligence to deal with the affective and behavioral implications of job insecurity.
Finally, we note that emotional intelligence, included in our model as a moderator variable, is an
individual difference. As such, our position reflects the view of House, Shane, and Harold
(1996) that dispositional variables continue to be important in organizational behavior research.
Job insecurity and its effects
Dekker and Schaufeli (1995) note that job insecurity is an internalized perception. It

---

emerges as a result of destabilized employment arrangements, most often through downsizing
(Feldman, 1995) but also from alterations to existing individual employment conditions in
organizations undergoing structural and strategic changes (Ashford et al., 1989). These
phenomena are widespread in industrialized economies (Rousseau & Parkes, 1993) and are a part
of the tapestry of organizational life, so it is reasonable to conclude that job insecurity is an issue
in most modern organizations in today’s workplace.
Consequently, considerable research has been undertaken into the effects of job
insecurity. This research has concentrated on outcomes such as its stress-producing effects
(Dekker & Schaufeli, 1995; Kuhnert, Sims, & Lahey, 1989; O'Driscoll & Cooper, 1996) and its
attitudinal implications (Ashford et al., 1989; Dekker & Schaufeli, 1995; Greenhalgh &
Rosenblatt, 1984; Hartley et al., 1991; Kanter, 1989; Krecker, 1994; Van Dyne & Ang, 1998).
As noted earlier, the present article extends this research by focusing on the emotional
antecedents of behaviors that emerge from perceived job insecurity, rather than continuing the
sole focus on cognitive reactions to job insecurity. This approach addresses Ashforth and
Humphrey’s (1995) call for more consideration of the role of emotion in organizational research.
The principal impetus for the development of our model is the need to resolve the
conflicting literature concerning the effect of job insecurity on personal outcomes. Greenhalgh
(1982) found that, correctly managed, perceptions of job insecurity during organizational change
can lead to increased organizational effectiveness on the part of employees (see also Greenhalgh
& Rosenblatt, 1984). Greenhalgh (1982) concluded that organizational members who feel
insecure in their jobs are motivated to work harder because (1) security is usually accompanied
by complacency, and (2) employees under threat need to work harder to secure their positions
and to maintain access to contingent rewards. This research was supported by Galup et al.

---

(1997), who noted a link between job insecurity and increased work commitment and effort.
Ashford et al. (1989), Dekker and Schaufeli (1995), Hartley et al. (1991), and O'Driscoll and
Cooper (1996), in constrast, argue that job insecurity has negative consequences for employees,
including reduced work effort, reduced organizational commitment, and reduced work
satisfaction. Kuhnert et al. (1989) argue further that job insecurity can lead to health problems
owing to the stress involved in coping with ambiguity, and that these problems act to reduce
employee performance.
An examination of the research conducted by Galup et al. (1997) and Greenhalgh (1982),
however, reveals that, in each instance, exogenous variables were used to explain the links
between increased job insecurity and improved work effort. In the case of the Galup et al (1997)
study, for example, the active variable was the use of social networks for support, while
Greenhalgh (1982) found that specific management techniques resulted in positive outcomes.
We argue in this article, that endogenous variables may also affect employee reactions to job
insecurity, but do so in a different and more complex manner.
This conclusion is supported by the research of Brockner, Grover, Reed, and Dewitt
(1992), who found an inverted U relationship between job insecurity and work effort when
examining the employees in a downsizing organization. Brockner and his colleagues, however,
were unable explain why this inverted U relationship occurred and suggested that future research
may find this explanation in "cognitive or arousal – based theories of motivation” (p. 424). In
particular, it remains unclear how or why individuals react differently to perceptions of job
insecurity. Why are some organisational members able to manage their perceptions of job
insecurity and therefore to maintain high work performance, while other become overwhelmed
by their perceptions to the extent that their performance deteriorates (Brockner et al., 1992)?

---

Essentially, we argue in this article that individual differences contribute to the inverted U
relationship. Further, these differences may be explained by examining the role that the personal
dispositional variable of emotional intelligence plays in moderating the effect of job insecurity on
emotional reactions and behavioral outcomes. The cornerstone of emotional intelligence is
emotional awareness and emotional management, so high emotional intelligence employees can
be expected to be better equipped than low emotional intelligence employees to deal with the
emotional consequences of job insecurity. On the other hand, employees with low emotional
intelligence may not be able to manage their insecurities. They would thus be expected to
experience a greater deal of work stress that can affect their work effort.
Emotional reactions to perceived job insecurity
In this section, we detail the first stage of our model by examining two potentially
detrimental emotional reactions that are likely to follow perceptions of job insecurity: lowered
affective commitment and increased job-related tension.
Affective commitment. The effect of job insecurity on commitment is discussed in the
careers literature. Kanter (1989), for example, noted that many employees now do not seek a
career within one organization; they seek instead to maximize their external marketability. As a
consequence, organizational members’ loyalty, once primarily owed to a single organization with
expectations of internal career advancement, must now be balanced between organizational
outcomes and career goals (Rousseau & Parkes, 1993). Dekker and Schaufeli (1995) and
Krecker (1994) have also shown that security of employment is a precursor of organizational
commitment.
Organizational commitment researchers (e.g., Kline & Peters, 1991; Krecker, 1994;
Porter, Steers, Mowday, and Boulian, 1974), however, have primarily portrayed insecurity as a

---

cognitive process. Indeed, as Tosi, Katz, and Gomez (1993) note, many researchers contend that
only incentive alignment and monitoring are needed to ensure an employee’s commitment. We
argue, consistent with Ashforth and Humphrey (1995), that this relationship is not fully
explainable as a cognitive process, and that cognitive rational processes are interwoven with
emotional processes. For instance, research has shown that employees often use cognitive
processes to justify decisions made in relation to their employment on the basis of how they feel
about a problem (Fointiat, 1998). Indeed, Allen and Meyer (1990) specifically include affective
commitment in their organizational commitment scale. Subsequent research into commitment
(e.g. Lucas, 1999) has tended to emphasize the importance of the affective dimension of
commitment.
Job-related tension. The links between job insecurity and job-related tension have also
been well established (Catalano, Rook, & Dooley, 1986; Hartley et al., 1991; O’Driscoll &
Cooper 1996). Kuhnert et al. (1989), for example, found that job insecurity is negatively related
to employee physical health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, elimination of all sources of workplace
stress, as advocated by Kahn and Byosiere (1992) and O’Driscoll and Cooper (1996), may also
be inappropriate because moderate stress can produce positive behaviors (Greenhalgh &
Rosenblatt, 1984), as long as the level of stress does not become unbearable (see Brockner et al.,
1992).
Behavioral response to emotional reactions
In this section, we describe the impact of emotional reactions on coping strategies and
behaviors. As we argued earlier, this part of the model stems from the idea that emotional
reactions and concomitant attitudes towards work result in specific behaviors. Thus, as Fishbein
and Ajzen (1975) have posited, actual behavior can only be interpreted if the intention underlying

---

the action has been identified.
Coping behaviors. Coping behaviors are intended to reduce job-related tension through
amelioration of experienced stress. Lazarus and Folkman (1984) refer to two types of coping
strategy. The first type, referred to as problem-focused coping, is intended to address the source
of the job-related tension directly. The second, labeled emotion-focused coping, is aimed at
minimizing the emotional ramifications of stress. We argue, however, that problem-focused and
emotion-focused behaviors can have either positive or negative effects on individual outcomes.
An examination of how these coping behaviors emerge during periods of job insecurity will
clarify these potential reactions.
An example of negative problem-focused coping is expression of anger and abuse of
immediate supervisors for the organization’s failure to provide job security. This type of
behavior not only reinforces the employee’s own and other employees’ perceptions of job
insecurity, but may also affect support networks that the employee can draw on in times of stress
(see Fitness, 2000, for discussion of the effects of anger). If the employee were to use positive
problem focused coping, on the other hand, they may choose to try to understand and thus to
resolve the stressful situation they are experiencing. Through cognitive reappraisal (Latack,
1986), for example, the employee can reframe the situation as an opportunity, rather than as a
threat. Alternatively, the employee can seek to establish constructive social networks that
provide emotional support (Vitaliano, Russo, Carr, Maiuro & Becker, 1985). While the support
that emerges from these networks contributes to positive emotion-focused coping, the actions
required to set up these networks directly addresses the problem of job insecurity perceptions,
and therefore can be considered positive problem-focused coping.
Negative emotion-focused coping behaviors with potential negative outcomes include

---

Document Outline

• emotional intelligence AS A MODERATOR OF EMOTIONAL AND BEHAVIORAL REACTIONS TO JOB INSECURITY
• emotional intelligence AS A MODERATOR OF EMOTIONAL AND BEHAVIORAL REACTIONS TO JOB INSECURITY
• ABSTRACT
• emotional intelligence AS A MODERATOR OF EMOTIONAL AND BEHAVIORAL REACTIONS TO JOB INSECURITY
  • Job insecurity and its effects
  • Emotional reactions to perceived job insecurity
  • Behavioral response to emotional reactions
  • Emotional intelligence as a moderating variable
  • Emotional reactions to job insecurity
  • Behavioral effects of emotion
  • Implications, limitations and future research opportunities
• References

---