Probing Emotional Intelligence to the Working Relationships of Coffee Shop Employees

Probing Emotional Intelligence to the Working Relationships of Coffee Shop Employees

Michelle P. Trangia*

Department of Psychology and Social Sciences, College of Arts & Sciences,Cebu Technological University, Cebu, Philippines

^*Corresponding author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.90400338

Received: 28 March 2025; Accepted: 10 April 2025; Published: 14 May 2025

ABSTRACT

Many individuals have mixed feelings about their jobs and the concept of work itself. Older employees may experience frustration or disappointment due to frequent challenging interactions and tasks that feel unfulfilling. Meanwhile, new workers often approach their first job with hidden anxieties or uncertainties. These feelings typically do not stem from a lack of willingness to work but rather from unfamiliarity with workplace expectations, interactions with colleagues, or appropriate behavior in a professional setting. This study aimed to assess the level of emotional intelligence (EQ) and determine, if any, the significant relationship between EQ and working relationship (WR) among the employees of selected coffee shops in Consolacion, Bohol, and Leyte.  Eighty-five (85) coffee shop workers responded to two tests: 1) a standardized test, Bar-On EQ i:S by Bar-On, designed to measure their level of emotional intelligence; and 2) a researcher-made test- the Working Relationship questionnaire, designed to assess the satisfaction level of working relationship with co-workers. Results showed that the majority had a low level of EQ and mostly perceived good working with coworkers. It was found through the Pearson r correlation coefficient that emotional intelligence was negatively correlated with the working relationship among the respondents. Testing its significance at the .05 level, the null hypothesis was rejected, stating that EQ and working relationships are negatively related. The results showed a negative correlation between the two variables and implied that the lower the EQ, the higher the WR or vice versa. Implications of the study include having a healthy working relationship with co-employees, which should not be solely attributed to enhanced emotional intelligence alone. Low emotional intelligence does not necessarily impede or hinder managing better human relations at work.

Keywords: coffee shops, emotional intelligence, employees, human resources, working relationships

INTRODUCTION

Psychologists have commonly viewed intelligence as allowing people to use their resources about whatever task effectively. Psychologists like Cattell and Binet have designed intelligence tests that have proven effective in identifying individuals who need help with their cognitive difficulties. Such acts, though, are not predictive of the person’s future status in life, nor do these define the person’s character or personality. This latter concept or idea challenges those who subscribe to a narrow view of intelligence, arguing that an Intellectual Quotient (I.Q.) is genetically given. That argument ignores the more challenging question: What can be changed to help individuals fare better in life? What factors are at play? Arguments made by social scientists (i.e., Goleman, Stein, Salovey, and Bar-On) found that the difference quite often lies in the abilities called Emotional intelligence (EQ), otherwise known as Emotional Quotient.

Emotional intelligence (EQ) is a type of social intelligence involving the ability to monitor one’s and others’ emotions, discriminate among them, and use the information to guide one’s thinking and actions [1]. EQ certainly describes the factual reality that high mental intelligence is not the final word on success and happiness in life. EQ defines how well one uses the “smarts” he or she has. While childhood is a critical time for its development, emotional intelligence is not fixed at birth. It can be nurtured and strengthened throughout adulthood with immediate benefits to our health, relationships, and work.

Many people have ambivalent feelings toward work and their jobs. Older workers may find their jobs filled with too many frustrating or disappointing human encounters and unrewarding activities. New employees often face the prospect of going to work for the first time with hidden fears or uncertainties. These uncertainties are seldom seated in the lack of a desire to work but instead in the lack of understanding about what to expect from colleagues or how to behave in the workplace in the presence of others. Cox (2002) believes that new and inexperienced workers must develop a behavior or a set of abilities to help them adapt to the job situation and reduce unnecessary interpersonal conflict. Should the worker be solicitous to more experienced workers, or should he or she put up a brave, if not false, front of self-confidence? This behavior may connote an impression of a lack of ambition or a know-it-all attitude, which may be undesirable or inaccurate.

In fast-paced organizations like coffee shops, holistic human capacity cultivation is supposed to occur. Human resource officers formulate programs to develop the fullest potential of the employees. Despite these, employees are known to have difficulties, such as facing conflicts and complying with the tasks to be done at work. Would this have something to do with EQ when emotions are often managed more than thought? In one of the well-known coffee shops in Cebu, for example, in one’s observations, things have deeply caused poor employee relationships. The fast turnover has multiplied concerns over the working relations. As a result of this phenomenon, the emotional content with which working relations are founded has become strained. For instance, asking for feedback on unaccomplished tasks instead of resolving issues during monthly meetings led to arguments and verbal fights every time one opened up. On some occasions, like busy days, shame blaming becomes a reason for delays in deliveries and unaccomplished tasks. Workers, according to gender, tend to group themselves apart from the other groups. These cases showed that employees do not feel at ease relating with those with whom they do not identify. An emotionally intelligent individual can manage dealing with various types of people even if they are not that close. In this case, it might be different.

While this is generally known, no study has been attempted to investigate the influence of emotional intelligence on working relationships. Helping employees maintain a favorable working environment without feeling threatened is a vital component of concern in personnel management. This cannot begin to happen without further studies. Toward this end, the researcher opted to conduct this study.

This study aimed to assess the level of emotional intelligence and satisfaction in terms of working relationships among coffee shop employees in Cebu, Bohol, and Leyte, as well as to determine whether emotional intelligence has a significant relationship with the working relationship among the employees. Researchers hypothesized that emotional intelligence has a significant positive relationship with the working relationship of the respondents.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

As the ancient philosopher Aristotle said, “Anyone can become angry—that is easy. However, to be angry with the right person, to the right degree, at the right time, for the right purpose, and in the right way is not easy.”

Aristotle was a wise man. He recognized that human beings can experience a full range of feelings. Learning when, how, where, why, and with whom to share the feelings is more complex than anyone might think at first glance. Emotional intelligence enables one to do this. Emotional intelligence (EQ), according to Bar-On [1], is defined as social intelligence involving the ability to monitor and discriminate emotions and use information to guide one’s thoughts and acts. It is a concept used to describe the levels we possess of key emotional responses. These include self-control, zeal, persistence, and the ability to motivate oneself to use others’ emotions, feelings, and moods to adapt and navigate society [8].

The concept of emotional intelligence is further defined by the following theorists on which this study is based: Goleman (1996), Stein (2000), Bar-On (2002), and Salovey (2005). Stein (2000) states that emotional intelligence is “the capacity to understand the world and the resourcefulness to cope with its challenges.” He also suggested that emotional intelligence is the capacity to act purposefully, to handle problems squarely, and to deal effectively with the environment. By these broad standards, people act intelligently when they learn from experience, seek practical solutions to everyday problems, relate well, and adapt to the world, whether at home or work. EQ is developing an awareness of feelings and emotions and using them appropriately. The level of emotional intelligence—the degree to which one is savvy about using emotions when communicating with others – is a huge factor in one’s success.

According to Bar-On (2002), “the construct of emotional intelligence is important because it represents the potential for emotionally and socially intelligent behavior” (p. 4). This is the driving force behind many aspects of human performance, effectiveness, and success. Emotionally intelligent behavior is observed in (a)how well one understands and expresses oneself, (b) how well one understands others and relates interpersonally, (c) how well one manages stress, (d) how well one cope with and adapts to change; and (e) the extent to which one is self-motivated to deal with a wide variety of daily demands and pressures. EQ involves abilities, competencies, and skills related to understanding oneself and others, relating to peers, family members, and co-workers, and adapting to changing environmental situations and demands. Within the context of organizational settings, these are the skills or abilities that often determine who will achieve the highest performance and career goals. Those with well-developed emotional and social skills quickly negotiate each day’s challenges. They display a generally happy and optimistic mood.

Goleman (2000) says, “Emotional intelligence is an ability that is being able to motivate oneself and persist in the face of frustrations” (p. 12). The ability to control impulses and delay gratifications when they occur suggests the EQ component.  Moreover, it characterizes regulating one’s moods and keeping distress from swamping the ability to think. It is the ability to empathize with one in need and hope in hopeless situations. EQ is considered a set of traits, or it can be called a character, that also matters immensely for personal destiny.  A healthy EQ encompasses five components: self-awareness, motivation, self-regulation, empathy, and social skills. These are relevant traits for one to grow into a fully functioning individual.

Salovey (2001) mapped the significant details of how intelligence can be brought to emotions. Salovey subsumes Gardner’s interpersonal intelligence in his basic definition of emotional intelligence and expands these abilities into five main domains: knowing one’s emotions, managing emotions, motivating oneself, recognizing emotions in others, and handling relationships. As Peter Salovey, the Yale psychologist who coined the term E.Q., puts it, “I.Q. gets you hired, but E.Q. gets you promoted” (p.32).

Knowing one’s emotions means recognizing a feeling as it happens. This is the ability to monitor feelings from moment to moment, which is crucial to psychological insight and self-understanding. An inability to notice one’s true feelings leaves one at one’s mercy. Managing emotions refers to handling feelings appropriately. It is an ability that is built on self-awareness. People who are poor in this ability are constantly battling feelings of distress. Motivating oneself means marshaling emotions to serve a goal, essential for paying attention and creativity. Recognizing emotions in others pertains to the empathic ability that builds emotional self-awareness, which is called “people skill.” Empathic people are more attuned to the subtle social signals that indicate what others need or want. Lastly, handling relationships is a skill and ability that undergirds popularity, leadership, and interpersonal effectiveness. People who excel in these skills do well at anything that relies on interacting smoothly with others. They are social stars, meaning most people know them.

Emotional intelligence (EQ) truly affects the ability to use emotions in relating to others at work and in one’s personal life. Important criteria for professional success in any field are the “people” skills derived from understanding emotions and responses to working with others. Understanding levels of emotional intelligence helps one develop new goals, behaviors, and attitudes toward oneself and others. The best managers have discovered it is essential for them to work on and demonstrate top-quality people skills. This self-knowledge is critical to one’s ability to relate to others and make decisions about human lives and work relationships [2].

The working relationship is “an interpersonal relationship that is task-based, non-trivial, and of continuing duration” [20]. Although working relationships can be understood in the context of interpersonal relationships involving exchanges of social contexts and norms between partners, they are clearly distinguished from ordinary interpersonal relationships in that they are based upon the shared goal of task achievement.

Graham and Kruger [11] formulated an adaptive management approach to working relationships. This concept was applied to a small group of Forest Service scientists. Adaptive management refers to responsive management of a diverse and dynamic opportunity for learning. It allows holistic and collaborative participation among the employees and management. The essence of adaptive management encouraged these scientists to work collaboratively with each other; they are oftentimes faced with challenges at work. Understanding management practices helps improve the working relationships among these scientists.

Given the conditions in today’s workplace, where employees are distinct from one another, it is important to know what factors determine whether a person is liked or disliked by others to be happy with one’s work. One important characteristic is the possession of various social skills. Another one is the ability to communicate effectively with others. People with such skills communicate well, are perceived as honest and credible, and make good first impressions. Persons lacking in it fare poorly at interpersonal communication and are usually perceived negatively by those around them. The members of every organization operate as a team. Working groups develop in particular ways of interacting with each other over time. The uniqueness of personalities affects how they relate to one another. Communication can be one of the factors that may determine how to relate with colleagues.  Effective interpersonal communication among members is a critical component of team functioning; how employees make decisions, assign work, hold members accountable, and interact with each other determines organizational success [20].

In recent years, efforts have been made by Riggio (2000) and colleagues to identify the essential component of interpersonal skills. These components are relevant factors in establishing a better relationship among workers in an organization. His research results suggest the most important components: emotional-social expressivity, emotional-social sensitivity, and emotional-social control. Emotional-social expressivity is the ability to express emotions nonverbally and verbally and engage others in social interaction, for example, by exhibiting a friendly gesture with a happy facial expression. Emotional-social sensitivity is the ability to “read” others’ emotional and nonverbal communication and know what is appropriate in various situations. On the other hand, emotional-social control is the skill of presenting oneself to others in a positive light while playing various social roles, such as the respectful teacher or the caring administrator.

The skill in controlling spontaneous expression of feeling when necessary is also in the light of emotional-social control. Once an employee can manage these components properly, he is off to a good start. As pointed out earlier, when an employee begins to relate with his or her colleagues, it will always reveal how well-developed his or her emotional skills are or how emotionally intelligent the person is.  It is observable in most work settings based on my work experiences; working relationships become the most important concern concerning the quality of work life. The working relationship is inevitably intertwined with emotional intelligence. EQ is important for most members to keep their organizational goals in mind continuously.

Relationships can often seem fragile – especially in the workplace, where our actions often build and destroy them. Ken Blanchard (2004) said a river without banks is a pond. Likewise, an organization without good relationships opens itself to potential interpersonal problems. Most team members will not intentionally harm others in the organization. However, the lack of an agreed-upon framework for interaction creates the potential for misunderstanding and negative conflict. Many experts assert that a high-quality employee relationship is one of the most important ingredients to a thriving institution.

Izzo (2004) said that when people are all so busy, learning to be mindful can significantly impact relationships with spouses, children, friends, and co-workers. However, these relationships have several inherent struggles to overcome. Several factors can be attributed to problematic working relationships, such as status, attitudes, length of service, position, and social abilities. Some individuals possess remarkable social abilities. These people who have the gift of creating harmonious relationships are often described as having charisma, meaning they have the unusual ability to arouse devotion in others. For example, several people who met the late Mother Teresa commented on her charisma. However, outwardly, she demonstrated few qualities usually associated with charisma. She was not a great, gregarious speaker or dressed for success. However, a Catholic priest who spent a year working in the Calcutta mission of Mother Teresa commented that the “amazing thing about her was that when you were in her presence, you felt like you were the most important person in the world. She was fully focused on you and so undistracted that her power engaged you” (p.121). What could be the source of her charisma?  The researcher of this study infers that Mother Teresa has unusual abilities to maintain connective relationships with everyone she met or worked with. She has an effective way of dealing with human interactions.

How does emotional intelligence relate to working situations? Now, it will be answered this way. Daniel Goleman (2000), one of the foremost researchers on emotional intelligence, found EQ to be twice as important as IQ and social skills at all job levels. Without it, a person can have the best training in the world, an incisive, analytical mind, and an endless supply of innovative ideas, but he still will not make a great leader. Improving EQ allows every employee to become a primal leader at his or her own pace who positively influences others with good social skills. Ranking high on EQ suggests that an individual would have effective working relationships. It includes some key aspects such as less impulsiveness, influence on positive teaming, reduced pessimism, and increased capacity for self-learning in others. Less impulsivity and reduced pessimism help employees deal with difficult situations, improve decision-making, and positively affect employees’ work attitudes. Emotionally intelligent people utilize social skills, moderate their behavior, and influence others to collaborate, build bonds, and communicate in team-based efforts.

On the other hand, less emotionally intelligent employees tend to see themselves as less efficacious, afraid to take on challenges, and failing to master new skills [9]. Yap (2004) cited Goleman that EQ determines our potential for learning practical skills based on its five elements discussed earlier: self-awareness, motivation, self-regulation, empathy, and social skills (adeptness in relationships). This new measure takes for granted having enough intellectual ability and technical know-how for jobs. Instead, it focuses on emotional competencies such as initiative, adaptability, and persuasiveness. EQ does not mean giving free rein to feelings or “letting it all hang out”; instead, it means managing feelings so they are expressed and controlled appropriately and effectively, enabling people to work together smoothly toward their common goals. For instance, the component of motivation of Goleman’s EQ theory and the effects of the lack of motivation towards the organization may be understood in the study conducted by Bar-On (2002) on destructive criticisms.

The result of his study showed that unskilled criticism was a cause for conflict at work. Other factors like feelings of mistrust, personality struggles, disputes over power, and pay stayed behind the factor of unskillful criticism. The result of this study implies that when people are incapable of motivating themselves in the right direction, this behavior or incompetence is reflected in others, thus becoming a decisive factor in having conflicts on the job.

In an organization, conflicts may arise, especially when the employees often interact with one another. Conflicts are oftentimes provoked by negative handling of emotions. Based on the description of emotional intelligence mentioned earlier. Emotions are inherent to social negotiation and are crucial to understanding how individuals behave within an organizational situation [3].   Happiness involves psychological factors such as optimism, extraversion, and personal control. These traits account for organizational success when people possess the skills of “handling another person’s emotions artfully” (p. 45). A supportive network of close relationships is motivated by an individual’s positive emotional construct (happiness). In contrast, anger (negative emotion) strongly impacts social relationships [19]. Managing relationships involves emotions translated into skills that call other people within the organization to move toward its envisioned direction. It is the skill of bringing people to wherever the organization desires despite setbacks or crises. In perspective, it is keeping the synergy of the group.

According to a study published by Wolfer (2003), an employee in depression shows up at the office and turns on his computer but spends the day struggling to concentrate on what he or she sees on the screen. This situation may be costing companies billions in lost productivity among depressed workers. He found that people with depression are often able to get to work. However, irritability, loss of concentration, and trouble relating to people can make it difficult for them to work well.

Another study by Twenge and Catanese (2002) provides experimental tests of the possible link between social exclusion and self-defeating behavior. The assumption begins that the need to relate with others is one of the most fundamental human motivations. So, being excluded from social relationships would be a potentially powerful blow. Social exclusion is emotionally distressful. The resulting emotional distress might lead to self-defeating behaviors. The latter behaviors do not manifest emotionally intelligent acts as far as emotional well-being is concerned.

A separate study examined what corporations seek in the Business Management Administrators (BMA) they hire. The three most desirable traits related to EQ are communication, initiative, and interpersonal skills. Brilliance alone will not propel a scientist to the top unless he or she can influence and persuade others. Emotional intelligence is central to leadership, a role whose essence is getting others to do their jobs more effectively. Interpersonal ineptitude in leaders lowers everyone’s performance. It wastes time, creates acrimony, corrodes motivation and commitment, and builds hostility and apathy [24].

Baumeister (2002) found that less emotionally intelligent individuals are less likely to join community organizations, have a substantially increased conflict with colleagues, and possess unstable social relations in the workplace. An account for much of these effects is emotional distress, which has been consistently linked to self-defeating behaviors and fewer stable relationships.

Cox (2002) often referred to emotional competencies and intelligence as “good people skills.” This is a valuable framework for developing interpersonal skills and personal effectiveness in employee roles and fostering healthy and productive working relationships. Cox adopted Goleman’s view on EQ as an essential skill that positively influences patient and staff satisfaction in the healthcare industry.

Kary and Kimivaki (2003) measured workers’ emotional and physical wellness regarding their work performance. The researchers found that workplaces rated having these factors-” injustices”- work overload, less social support networks, and poor relations between superiors and subordinates were correlated with 41 percent higher risks of absence due to illness and lower ability of emotional adaptiveness and getting stressed out early. It says that workers seemed more affected by workplace injustices. This has resulted in layoffs and more harsh interpersonal relationships with co-workers.

Menzie (2005) examined middle school youth’s emotional intelligence and social competence. The reported results showed positive correlations between emotional intelligence and social competence scales. He concluded that data indicate that the adaptability and stress management scales may have significant value in predicting emotional construct.        Morrison (2007) has sought to investigate the role of emotional intelligence in five core social tasks at work: engagement of users, assessment and observation, decision-making, collaboration and cooperation, and dealing with stress. It is argued that social tasks at work need to identify their claims to professional competence during such change, one of which is the ability to use relationships to address user’s needs. This requires the capacity to handle one’s and the other’s emotions effectively.

The study of Cole, Bruch, and Vogel (2006) explored whether emotion experienced at work mediates the relationship between perceived supervisor support and employee cynicism. Mediational analyses showed that employees’ positive and negative emotional experiences amidst an organizational crisis fully accounted for the relations between perceived supervisor, cynicism, and psychological hardiness.

All these concepts and constructs in varying situations offer an instructive look at how emotional intelligence affects relationships, especially in workplaces. These pictures add far more proof and basis that emotionally intelligent behaviors make us more fully human and are a way to target development efforts and success in life. Many businesses, like coffee shops, are realizing the value of emotional intelligence in the workplace. People who cannot marshal some control over their emotional lives fight inner battles that sabotage their ability for focused work and clear thought. Those who know how to manage one’s feelings well and who read and deal effectively with others are at an advantage in any domain of life, whether in intimate relationships or picking up the unspoken rules that govern success in organizational politics. Suppose, to a certain degree, a person has emotional intelligence and can maintain harmonious working relationships with colleagues. In that case, these qualities add more credit to make him a fully developed human being.

METHODOLOGY

Using the correlational method, the study utilized a standardized test and researcher-made questionnaire as the main instruments in gathering data. This research was conducted in the three provinces of Region 7, namely, Cebu, Bohol, and Leyte, to coffee shops purposively selected. A total of eighty-five respondents with different work assignments answered the questionnaire. Most test takers come from Cebu, which has the most numbered coffee shops.

This study utilized the standardized tests- Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: Short Version and the researcher-made questionnaire on Working Relationships. The Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: Short (Bar-On EQ-i:S) is an easily administered self-report instrument designed to measure emotionally intelligent behavior when a more detailed assessment is impossible or is not required. The latest model of the Bar-On series focuses on the five major components of assessment: (1) Intrapersonal Scale, (2) Interpersonal Scale, (3) Stress Management, (4) Adaptability, and (5) General Mood. These scales are defined in the Definition of Terms (p. 41). It contains 51 statements that describe the five composite scales as well as 15 subscales that assess the various aspects of emotional intelligence.

On the contrary, the researcher formulated the second instrument. It has 45 items designed to assess the working relationship among employees with a 5-point scale ranging from very satisfactory as the highest to very poor as the lowest scale. A very satisfactory rating implies a healthy and satisfying working relationship among these employees; the opposite is implied through poor-to-poor ratings. A healthy working or satisfying relationship is characterized by an open communication line between employees, teamwork and coordination, understanding of one another, good stress management skills, work commitment, less percentage of unmet deadline work, higher participation in school activities, free expression of one’s opinions, often seen in a happy mood, less percentage of turnover and a progressive organization. In contrast, the opposing description could be considered an unsatisfactory working relationship.

To test its reliability and validity, the researcher-made instrument was pre-tested on 50 randomly selected teachers with a mean age of 42 years (SD = 12.01). Employing the computer-aided formula and a statistician’s help, the results were reliable and valid. To determine the degree to which a second administration of the same instrument would produce similar results (i.e., the extent to which results are consistent over time), the researcher tested the instrument’s reliability. Internal reliability was employed by the researcher with the aid of a statistician. Internal reliability refers to the degree to which all items on a particular item consistently measure the same construct. A frequently used approach to determine internal reliability is Cronbach’s alpha, an overall summary coefficient between 0.00 (poor reliability) and 1.00 (perfect reliability). Reliability coefficients were presented separately by gender and age group. Overall coefficients were satisfactory across the normative sample. Reliability consistently had coefficients of .76. The Score is near 1.0; thus, the instrument is reliable.

Bar-On Emotional Inventory and the Working Relationship questionnaire were scored differently. Both of these tests were manually scored without an available scoring machine.  Using the standard procedure, the Bar-On EQ is scored individually. The quick score form contains special aids that make scoring the various scales quick and accurate, and there is no need to perform tedious hand conversions. For Bar-On EQ; iS, raw scores can be determined easily. After calculating the raw scores, the data was converted into standard scores on a separate profile sheet. Factor E, or the total EQ, demonstrated the respondent’s level of EQ. The data were tabulated based on the number of employees with low, average, and high levels of emotional intelligence. The formula on the next page was used to compute the total frequency of respondents who scored in a specific category (i.e., low).

Checkmarks are tallied on a separate table for the Working relationship questionnaire. After the tabulation, the item average is computed to obtain the weighted mean. A correlation coefficient formula was employed to determine the relationship between emotional intelligence and working relationships. The coefficient formula used was Pearson r (correlation coefficient).

RESULTS AND FINDINGS

This section presents and discusses the data gathered from cluster-sampled employees. The emotional intelligence of these employees was measured through the standardized test, Bar-On EQ: is Working relationships were measured using a researcher-made test called the Working Relationship Questionnaire.

Employees’ Level of Emotional Intelligence

Table 1 below presents the general profile of the level of emotional intelligence obtained by the respondents through the scoring results.

TABLE 1 Respondents’ Emotional Intelligence Level n= 85

Legend: f= number of respondents/ frequencies E.Q. = emotional intelligence%= percentage

Table 1 summarizes the percentages of respondents exhibiting different levels of emotional intelligence. Data showed that most cluster or work assignment respondents obtained low E.Q scores. This implies that most employees have underdeveloped emotional intelligence and considerable room for improvement. Based on the data, employees are expected to be less likely to relate well with others, barely acknowledge their feelings, be less flexible, and easily upset with untoward situations. The employees might have difficulty expressing themselves to others. They tend to have difficulty coping with and adapting to change and dealing with daily demands and pressures in school. Those who obtain low EQ often become emotionally unstable and exhibit withdrawn behaviors. The person tends to manifest less social conformity, accentuating the adverse, exaggerated concern over what they imagine other people might think or feel about them. They tend to be reluctant to take on challenges and expect little of themselves [1]. Baumeister (2002) emphasized that less emotionally intelligent individuals are less likely to join community organizations, have a substantially increased conflict with colleagues, and possess unstable social relations in the workplace.

Paulus and Brown (2000) stated that interactions in various circumstances and social settings may be pleasant, rewarding, or frustrating and create conflict. This interaction may occur in small firms, public and private agencies, and institutions. Riggio (2000) pointed out that role differences sometimes affect the entire dimension of working relationships. For example, a more senior worker, like a department head, has a role of leadership that requires him or her to maintain an acceptable level of sociability with colleagues or subordinates. Thus, from this viewpoint, a working relationship is the integration of people in a work situation that motivates them to work together productively, cooperatively, and with economic, psychological, and social satisfaction. In a situation like this, an office staff member may quit her job, or a department head may fire an employee if he or she cannot resolve a disagreement. This mode of dealing with a problem carries emotional penalties for one or the other parties. In this case, emotional well-being again takes place. Emotion itself can be a major detractor in achieving a satisfying working relationship. The tangible value of working relationships in an organization is often designed to make employees happy.

Working Relationship of the Respondents

The instrument formulated by the researcher answered the question of what kind of working relationship existed among the employees in varied work assignments through the results gathered. Below are the findings of the testing.

Table 2 Level of Working Relationship (n = 85)

Legend: VP= Very poor P= Poor     F= Fair     G= Good    VG= Very Good   %= percentage f= frequency

Table 2 reflected varying perceptions among respondents regarding working relationships. In each position, different views were found regarding relating with colleagues. The results from the three positions consistently showed that most coffee shop employees found their working relationship generally fair or reasonable (41.2%). It suggested that employees can work together effectively to achieve success and satisfaction within the workplace [5].  Social conformity, acceptance, trust, and support can be seen within the group. Characteristics such as trust and norms could influence the development of working relationships [16]. Despite the pressures of strenuous relations, they sometimes tend to find solutions to resolve possible conflicts, as was confirmed with the workers when verified.  More often, they tried to interact smoothly with everyone, especially their superiors and older colleagues. Respect was an important factor in maintaining acceptable sociability with subordinates and superiors.

Correlation of Emotional Intelligence with Working Relationship

At this point, the researcher tried to examine whether emotional intelligence (E.Q.) is significant in working relationships. It is concerned with determining the extent to which increments in one variable (EQ) occur together with increments in the other (Working relationship). The Pearson Product-moment (r) correlation coefficient was utilized. In this case, Emotional intelligence (EQ) is indicated as the x variable, while Working relationship is indicated as the y variable. The computed value of the correlation coefficient obtained was -.349. The obtained value of r = -.349, where r is less than 0. This implied that there was a negative correlation between EQ and working relationships. This means that as employees found working relationships better, the level of EQ decreased. The diagram below shows the scatter plot for negative correlation.

Figure 1. Scattergram of a negative correlation between EQ and working relationship

Notice that the points are slanted toward the left. This direction of the plotted points is indicative of a negative correlation. The lower the emotional intelligence level, the better the working relationship is with the respondents. Hypothesis testing was performed to test the correlation’s significance despite its negative relationship. Results are discussed on the following pages.

Hypothesis Testing

The significance of the hypothesis of the Pearson r was tested using the formula shown in the table.

Table 3 Test of Significance at (.05) level

From the data previously presented, the null hypothesis was tested. The null hypothesis stated that no significant correlation exists between EQ and working relationships. The null hypothesis (t = – 0.744) was rejected using ∞ = 0.05 significance level since the computed t-value lies in the critical region (-2.776 to 2.776). Therefore, it can be concluded that EQ and WR are significantly correlated. The results unexpectedly showed different implications compared with how it was described previously in the theoretical background. Some factors lead the findings to become negatively correlated. The researcher infers that probably one of the reasons for these results is cultural bias, the number of respondents, and the setting of test administration.

The Bar-On EQ-i:S is a standardized tool Dr. Reuven Bar-On and company formulated to measure emotional intelligence. The test was based on normative samples of White (Caucasian), Black (Afro-American), Hispanic, and Native American. It also reflected the central U.S. and Canadian data collection sites. Asians constituted a minimal .03% of the sample. When the respondents, all Filipinos, of this study took this test, the results showed that they understood the items in a different light owing to cultural dimensions and may have responded differently.

The researcher-made Working Relationship (WR) questionnaire was designed for Filipino respondents and crafted by a Filipino. The researcher, a Filipino, formulated the questionnaire that entails her customs, language, and social views, which the respondents might have similar thoughts with how the questionnaire was worded. On the other hand, the emotional intelligence (Bar-On EQ-i:S) test, which tended to elicit “Westernized” responses, did not meet with similar reactions from this study’s respondents.

Another factor is the venue where the tests were taken. It was conducted at their respective workplaces, in coffee shops. Familiarity sometimes breaches the rules of honesty. It might have been influenced by the observer’s bias or the investigators’ effects.  The participants have known each other for quite some time. In a way, most of them may have felt “at home” with one another. This feeling of “at-homeness” might have fostered the respondents’ attitudes toward each other, leading to biased responses. With this kind of atmosphere, faking responses would be inevitable. This will be explained in the subsequent paragraphs [26].

Although the EQ generally showed low results, Bar-On EQ-i:S results also manifested that the primary strength of the respondents was the area of Adaptability. Perhaps this suggests that most of them possess a well-developed ability to realistically evaluate the immediate situation and effectively deal with problems as they arise.  Employees who took the tests are adapting to the kind of management that the organization has. This may support a good working relationship among them. As stated earlier by Graham and Kruger (2001) in his study, adaptive management encourages employees to work collaboratively with each other when they are faced with challenges at work. Understanding management practices helps improve the working relationships among these workers.

Demographic Profile of Respondents

Table 4 Demographic Profile of Respondents

Table 4 shows that most respondents fall within the 23–30 age range. Being in a similar age group often means sharing common interests, preferences, and needs, which can contribute to stronger interpersonal bonds. Additionally, most respondents are female, which may enhance their sense of closeness. Individuals of the same gender are more likely to share social circles and engage in leisure and recreational activities. Furthermore, many of them joined the organization around the same time.

Research suggests that longer tenure within an establishment is positively associated with developing workplace friendships, as time fosters deeper interpersonal connections [1]. While men are generally found to form more workplace friendships and rate relationship quality higher than women, gender homophily—the tendency to associate with others of the same gender—also influences collaboration patterns. Though tenure contributes to friendships and employee loyalty, its effect on the overall quality of workplace relationships remains inconclusive [26].

The collected data demonstrates that work relationship traits and quality are strongly influenced by employee attributes like age category and gender, along with years of professional experience. Employees with common characteristics develop a base infrastructure that enables trust-building and mutual comprehension within their workplace culture. The shared demographic characteristics between these employees appear to operate as an alternative mechanism that overcomes deficits in their emotional intelligence assessments.

Employees of similar ages and genders tend to create a feeling of familiarity, promoting workplace connections, while joint work experience enables teamwork growth through collective past events. Team members who share demographic attributes have greater potential to develop better workplace relationships regardless of their low emotional regulation or empathy skills. Demographic similarities in these situations work as protective mechanisms that strengthen work relationships and create positive workplaces despite emotional intelligence difficulties.

Employees must have otherwise understood the existing practices of the management because Filipinos run the organization. Employees adapt to survive rather than disappoint the management, ending up on an empty stomach. Tomakin (2005) also pointed out that role differences sometimes affect the entire dimension of working relationships. For example, a more senior employee has a leadership role that requires him to maintain acceptable sociability with colleagues or subordinates. A leader must project a favorable disposition before his or her colleague to gain respect. In return, the subordinates show a cooperative attitude towards the leaders to win friendships that might be useful later. Thus, from this viewpoint, a working relationship is the integration of people in a work situation that motivates them to work together productively, cooperatively, and with economic, psychological, and social satisfaction.

The respondents also had low scores on the stress management scale in the EQ test. The need for improved stress management described a strong tendency for vigilance, tension, and anxiety. Most of them cannot work well under pressure. Most likely, they become impulsive, cannot tolerate frustration, and tend to lose control. Impulse control problems often negatively influence one’s ability to concentrate. These descriptions more likely characterize having a low level of EQ.  In summary, the subscales have a significant relationship, as mentioned previously. The findings show that the respondents obtained the Average Interpersonal and High Adaptability scales. These subscales are essential attributes to satisfactory working relationships of these employees. On the other hand, Low scores in Positive Impression, Intrapersonal, General mood, and Stress management also explain the low emotional intelligence. Since self-impression, mood, and stress management are essential elements of EQ, according to Bar-On. In totality, more scales show low scores, indicating low emotional intelligence among the respondents.

Considering the factors affecting the findings in this study, such as the research tools, attitude of the respondents, subscale scores, and the meaning of working relationships, these become justifications for the negative correlation between emotional intelligence and working relationships.

CONCLUSION

Conclusion

Upon the findings of the study, the following conclusions are drawn: (1) that the implication of having a healthy working relationship with co-employees should not be solely attributed to an enhanced emotional intelligence alone; (2) lowering of emotional intelligence does not necessarily impede or hinder in managing better human relations at work; (3) being attuned to the feelings of those we deal with, being able to handle disagreements, and having the ability to get into flow states while doing work are not just the benefits of being skilled in EQ; (4) enabling people to work together smoothly toward their common goals does not mean managing one’s emotions in order to put them into work.

In the workplace, one must recognize one’s deepest emotions about what one does and what changes could be made to be more truly satisfied with one’s work. However, everyone has his mechanisms in determining how to be satisfied with the people he works with and those for whom he is responsible. Therefore, emotional intelligence seems to be primarily learned, and it continues to develop as an individual goes through life and learns from his experiences.

Recommendations

Based on the study’s current findings from the different groups of respondents, the researcher recommends that the low scores on Bar-On EQ-i:S suggest the need for improvement in certain areas and interventions designed to develop those specific skills and competencies. Training, remedial programs, and therapeutic interventions can improve emotionally intelligent behavior and related skills. It is best developed through motivation, extended practice, and feedback—re-testing of the respondents to evaluate progress whenever possible. The results of the re-testing can, in this way, highlight the need for additional intervention. The focus of improvement is on enhancing emotional intelligence because the relationship is always reparable. An equipped tool for EQ will bring someone reasonably well to a better place.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This work acknowledges the owners of these coffee shops who participated in the data gathering and so with the employees who patiently took the tests.

REFERENCES

1. Alsaiari, A., Puteh, F., & Ali, A. J. M. (2020). Could demographic variables impact the relationship between HRM practices and Employee Loyalty? A meta-analysis review. databases, 4(1).
2. Bar-On, Reuven (2002). BarOn Emotional Quotient Inventory: Short, Technical Manual. Canada: Multi-Health Systems, Inc., American Psychiatric Press.
3. Bar-On. Reuven (2006).. Handbook of Emotional Intelligence. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
4. Baumeister, Roy F (2002).. “Esteem Threat, Self-regulatory Breakdown, and Emotional Distress as Factors in Self-defeating Behavior.” Review of General Psychology, Vol. 1, pp. 145–174.
5. Blanchard, K. A. (2004). One Minute Manager. (1^st ed). New York: Bantam Books.
6. Calmorin, L. (2004). Measurement and Evaluation. (3^rd ed). Mandaluyong City: National Bookstore.
7. Cole, Michael S., Heike Bruch, & Bernd Vogel, (2006). “Emotion as Mediators of the Relations between Perceived Supervisor Support and Psychological Hardiness on Employee Cynicism.” Journal of Organizational Behavior. Chichester, Vol. 27, Iss. 4.
8. Cox, S. (2002). “Emotional Competence.” Nursing Management. Vol. 33, Iss. 10.
9. De Janasz, Suzanne, Karen O Dowd, and Beth Z. Schneider (2006). Interpersonal Skills in Organization. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. New York.
10. Espiritu, T. C. (2000). “A Comparative Study on the Emotional Competencies of Nurses in Selected Public and Private Hospitals in Cebu City: Proposed Intervention Program.” Unpublished Master’s thesis. University of San Carlos, Cebu City.
11. Goleman, D. (2000). Working with Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam books.
12. Graham, A. C., & Linda E. Kruger. (2001). “A Model of the Distributor’s Perspective of Distributor-manufacturer Working Relationships.” Journal of Marketing. Vol. 48, No. 4. MCB OP Ltd.
13. Izzo, J. (2004). Second Innocence: Rediscovering Joy and Wonder, A Guide to Renewal in Work, Relationships and Daily Life. McGraw-Hill Company, New York.
14. Kary, Tiffany, Mika Kimivaki (2003).” Down and Out on the Job.” Psychology Today.
15. Menzie, T. A.(2005). “Emotional Intelligence and Social Academic Competence in Middle School Youth .” Dissertation abstracts are international. Rutgers. The State University of New Jersey, G.S.A.P.P.
16. Morrison, T. (2007). “Emotional Intelligence, Emotion and Social Work: Context, Characteristics, Complications and Contribution.” British Journal of Social Work. Oxford, Vol. 37, Iss. 2.
17. Paulus, Paul, Robert Brown, & Catherine Seta (2000). Effective Human Relations. Pitman Publishing Corporation, New York.
18. Riggio, A. A.(2000). “Leading Relationship to Success.” Personnel Psychology. Vol. 88, No. 5.
19. Salovey, P., Mayer, J.D., Sitarenios, D. (2001). Emotional intelligence is a standard intelligence. Emotion, Vol 1(3)
20. Santrock, J. W. (2000). Psychology. (6^th). Mc-Graw Hill Company, Inc. USA.
21. Sosik, J. J. (2001). “Self-other Agreement on Charismatic Leadership: Relations with Work Attitude and Managerial Performance.” Group & Organization Management. 26.
22. Stein, S. J., & Book, H.E. (2000). The EQ Edge: Emotional Intelligence and Your Success. Toronto, ON: Stoddart.
23. Tomakin, F. Y. (2005). Applied Statistics. Statlink Research Training & Development, Cebu, Philippines.
24. Twenge, J. M., & Kathleen R. Catanese. (2002). “Social Exclusion Causes Self-defeating Behavior.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 83, No. 3.
25. Van Kleef, Gerben A. & Carsten K. De Dreu.(2004). “The Interpersonal Effects of Emotions in Negotiations: A Motivated Information Processing Approach.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 87, No. 4.
26. Wang, Z., Wang, Y., & Zhao, L. (2024). Impact of demographic characteristics on workplace friendship: a meta-analytic review. Psychological Reports, 127(6), 2680–2716.
27. Wolfer, S. (2003). “Depression’s Bottom Line.” Psychology Today.
28. Yap, John C. (2004)“IQ versus EQ.” Kerygma. 14, Issue 168.