Volume 8 Number 1, 2023 Volume 8 Number 1, 2023 Faculty of Social Sciences, Enugu State University of Science And Technology EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Prof. Oby Omeje MANAGING EDITOR Prof. Barnabas Nwankwo PUBLISHED BY ENUGU STATE UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES & HUMANITIES 1 Moderating Role of Emotional Intelligence in Organizational Cynicism and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour in a Sample of Lecturers 1Ikpenwa, C.E., 1Okonkwo, E.A., *1Ezeh, M.A., 2Okonkwo, N.V. 1Azike I.N 1Enugu State University of Science and Technology (ESUT) 2Department of Educational Psychology, Enugu State College of Education Technical *Corresponding author: michaelarinze40@gmail.com Abstract This study investigated the moderating role of emotional intelligence in organizational cynicism and organizational citizenship behaviour in a sample of lecturers. Three hundred and nineteen participants comprising 207 males and 112 females between the ages of 30 - 70 (M=51.61, SD =10.26) were drawn through multi-stage (cluster and criterion). The study was a cross-sectional survey in which Emotional Intelligence Scale (Davies et al, 2010), Organizational Cynicism Scale (Dean, et al, 1998) and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour Scale (Smith, Organ & Near 1983) were administered for data collection. Moderated hierarchical multiple regression analysis was used for data analysis. The results indicated that emotional intelligence and organizational cynicism jointly predicted organizational citizenship behaviour among university lecturers (ΔR2 = .067, P<. 01). Cognitive, affective and behavioural components of organizational cynicism jointly predicted organizational citizenship behaviour (ß=.22, P<. 05). Behavioural component of organizational cynicism independently predicted organizational citizenship behaviour (ß=.22, P<. 05). The dimensions of emotional intelligence (appraisal of own emotion, appraisal of others emotion, regulation of own emotion, regulation of others emotion and utilization of emotion jointly moderated the prediction of organizational citizenship behaviour by organizational cynicism (R2 = 0.155, ΔR2 = 0.30, P<. 001). Only utilization of emotion dimension of emotional intelligence independently and negatively moderated the prediction of organizational citizenship behaviour by organizational cynicism (ß = -.32, P<. 05). It has been recommended that policy makers in the University should create conditions that will boost the emotional intelligence especially utilization of emotions of lecturers in order to cushion off the negative effects of organizational cynicism on organizational citizenship behaviour of their workforce. Keywords: Emotional Intelligence, Organizational Cynicism, Organizational Citizenship Behaviour, Lecturers . Introduction The most important factor in an organization is the human resources (e.g. lecturers), who give their energy, talent, creativity and their efforts to the organization. As working under changing circumstances becomes an essential feature of schools (Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2004), organizations especially universities will necessarily become more dependent on mailto:michaelarinze40@gmail.com 2 lecturers who are willing to contribute to successful change, regardless of formal job requirements. In the organizational literature, these non-prescribed organizational beneficial behaviours and gestures are distinguished from organizational behaviours that can be forced on the basis of formal role obligations (VanYperen, 2017). Batman and Organ (1983) described these non-prescribed behahiours as organizational citizenship behaviours. Organizational citizenship behaviour refers to discretionary extra-role behaviours beneficial to employees and organization as a whole (Hazzi, 2018; Somech & Oplatka, 2015). Organizational citizenship behaviour are discretionary, beyond-role behaviours and gestures that are not explicitly recognized by the formal reward system but are considered important in promoting organizational effectiveness (Organ, 2018; Somech & Oplatka, 2015). Dyne, Cummings and Parks (2005) defined organizational citizenship behaviour as behaviour that attempts to benefit the organization and that goes beyond existing role expectations. Organizational citizenship describes employee’s behaviour with different organization’s social systems. It has developed into significant field of study because of the growing importance of autonomous and team-based work in place of strict traditional hierarchies (LePine, Erez & John, 2002). As a result, understanding organizational citizenship behaviour is increasingly necessary for the maintenance of organization’s social systems and employee’s roles within them. On both a macro level, in terms of the changing nature of all organizations and a micro level with respect to individual organizations, the roles of employees and their organizational citizenship behaviour is fundamental (Gadot, Beeri, Shemesh & Somech, 2007). Organizational citizenship behaviour can affect individuals by their predisposition as well as their adaptation to perceived benefits from this type of behaviour. Organizational citizenship behaviours are selected by individuals in alignment with personal goals and with how they see their future selves (Hulbesleben & Bellairs, 2015). Yaghoubi, Yazdani and Khornegh (2011), stressed the importance of organizational citizenship behaviour stating that citizenship behaviours cause individuals to assume a conscious attitude and develop a proactive behaviour when facing organizational situation. Somech and Drach-Zahavy (2004) speculate that different organizations will experience different levels of organizational citizenship behaviour from their employees. This study suggests that learning opportunities and structures within an organization can encourage organizational citizenship behaviours by fostering a common purpose and strategic thinking. By 3 creating the right context, organizations can encourage employees to internalize values of valid information, transparency, issue orientation and accountability so as to be ready to engage in organizational citizenship behaviour (Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2004). Although organizational citizenship behaviour has largely been considered a positive behaviour that benefits the organization, there are risks and costs associated with it. A related concept is “compulsory citizenship behaviours’ in which managers expects and demand workers to do more than is listed in their formal job requirements (Van & Ellis, 2004; Vigoda-Gadot, 2006). For employees who demonstrate organizational citizenship behaviour, lack of reward from organization, or lack of reciprocity from the colleagues assisted may damage motivation because of little or no chance of further promotion and this will lead to organizational cynicism (Hui, 2000; Kim, 2013). The organizational cynicism and organizational citizenship behaviour conceptual structures were found to be related in previous studies. A high level of organizational cynicism leads to lower level of organizational citizenship behaviour, suggesting a negative relationship between each other (Cartwright, 2006). Psychological contract violations erode trust, resulting in lower organizational citizenship behaviour levels and higher organizational cynicism (Abraham, 2000). Studies have shown that organizational cynicism affects organizational citizenship behaviour negatively, as a result of reducing job satisfaction and commitment (Yetim & Ceylan, 2011). Organizational cynicism is an attitude that involves unfriendliness due to a confidence that the organization lacks honesty and will always attempt to fool its employees (Nair & Kamalanabhan, 2010). It is an individual negative feeling, such as disturbance, dissatisfaction and hopelessness about the staff and organization (Ozler, Derya & Ceren, 2011). Organizational cynicism describes the negative attitudes employees have towards their colleagues, occupations and organizations (Delken, 2005; Kocoglu, 2014; Simha, Elloy & Huang, 2014). Admittedly, cynical employees believe that the organizations they work in lack principles of equality, sincerity, honesty, integrity and transparency (Ozler & Atalay, 2011). Accordingly, employees that suffer cynicism have feelings of distrust, hopelessness, insecurity and disturbance (Kahn, 2014). Kaifi (2013) affirms that cynicism provides interpretation for many organizational phenomena like organizational psychological withdrawals, employee mental departure from 4 work duties by day dreaming or cyber loafing, organizational physical withdrawal and employee’s physical departure from his workplace by absenteeism or late arrival to work. This may help to explain why many studies have devoted considerable interest in examining the relationship between cynicism and other organizational behaviour aspects such as job stress (Kocoglu, 2014), job burnout (Simha, Elloy & Huang, 2014), organizational cynicism (TukeHurk, 2012), work related quality of life (Yasin & Khalid, 2015) and turnover intention (Nazir, Ahmad,& Nawab 2016). According to Dean, Brandes and Dharwadkar (1998), organizational cynicism is a negative attitude towards organization or attitude of aggravation with key characteristics of negativity. Yildiz (2013), argues that organizational cynicism is characterized by three dimensions which include cognitive, affective and behavioural. Cognitive dimension of cynicism refers to individuals in the organizations having cynic attitude, lack principles and rules, not taking official works and rules serious, display inconsistent behaviours full of lie and tricks, experience problem in trusting others and prioritize personal interests. In this dimension, the emphasis here is lack of honesty by the organization. Affective or emotional dimension of organizational cynicism includes strong emotional reactions as disrespect, anger, distress and embarrassment. In this dimension, negative emotions as disrespect, underestimating others, anger, fury, hate towards others, arrogance, moral corruption, disappointment and unreliability take place. Behavioural dimension suggests that employees displaying cynic behaviour make pessimistic forecasts for the future events in the organization, have ironic sense of humour, and have the feeling of contempt towards the organization and use strong critical expressions. There are two main factors causing organizational cynicism: These are personal and organizational factors. While characteristics as gender, age, marital status, seniority, income and educational levels constitute personal factors, organizational justice, break of the agreement, cynicism are organizational factors ( Polatcan & Titrek, 2014). Organizational cynicism is the belief that an organization lacks integrity, which, when coupled with a powerful negative emotional reaction leads to disparaging and critical behaviour (Abraham, 2000). In addition to the negative relationship between organizational citizenship behaviour and organizational cynicism, these two factors have also been found to be related to emotional 5 intelligence. For example, studies found significant relationship between emotional intelligence, organizational cynicism and job performance (Bayram,2017; Vratskikh, Mas’deh, Al-Lozi & Maqbleh, 2016; Deshwal, 2016; Nafei, 2015; Johnson & O’Leary-Kelly, 2013).Emotional intelligence is defined as employee’s ability to manage his/her emotions effectively; to control impulse and delay gratification; to regulate one’s moods and keep distress from swamping the ability to think; to empathize; to manage oneself and one’s relationships with others in a constructive and mature manner (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). The work of Jha and Kumar (2012) reveals that most of the dimensions of emotional intelligence (appraisal of own emotions, appraisal of other’s emotions, regulation of own emotions, regulation of other’s emotions and utilization of emotions) were positively correlated with organizational citizenship behaviour. Thus the current study tends to investigate the moderating role of emotional intelligence in the relationship between organizational cynicism and organizational citizenship behaviour among lecturers. According to the diagram below, organizational citizenship behaviour is the criterion variable while organizational cynicism is the predictor variable and emotional intelligence as the moderator variable. Emotional Intelligence Organizational cynicism Organizational citizenship behaviour Figure 1 Hypotheses The following hypotheses were tested 1. Organizational cynicism (cognitive, affective and behavioural) will predict organizational citizenship behaviour. 6 2. Emotional intelligence (appraisal of own emotions, appraisal of others’ emotions, regulation of own emotions, regulation of others’ emotions and utilization of emotions) will predict organizational citizenship behaviour. 3. Emotional intelligence (appraisal of own emotions, appraisal of others’ emotions, regulation of own emotions, regulation of others’ emotions and utilization of emotions) will moderate the prediction of organizational citizenship behaviour by organizational cynicism. Method Participants Three hundred and nineteen lecturers drawn from all the Faculties (Agric, Applied Natural Sciences, Basic medical Sciences, and Clinical Medicine, Education, Environmental Sciences, Law, Management Sciences, Pharmaceutical Sciences, Social Sciences and Humanities) in Enugu State University of Science and Technology participated in this study. The participants comprised 207 males and 112 females between the ages of 30 to 70 years (M = 51.61, SD = 10.26). They were selected using multi-stage sampling technique (cluster and criterion). The participants (lecturers) were divided into clusters (Faculties) or groups (Larson & Major, 1998). Criterion sampling was applied in each cluster (Faculty) because it allowed the researcher to select cases (participants) that met predetermined criteria of importance (Patton, 2001). In line with the inclusion criteria only full-time lecturers with a minimum of M.Sc degree and had spent at least 3 years participated in the study. Moreover, the adjunct, part-time, sabbatical, contract and also lecturers that had not spent up to 3 years in University were excluded. In addition, demographic characteristics such as age, gender, marital status, educational qualification (Ph.d = 179, M.Sc = 140), years of experience and rank (Professors = 25, Senior lecturers = 65, Lecturer I = 60, Lecturer II = 169) were explored as control variables. In addition, 302 of the lecturers were married while 17 were not married. Instrument Three scales were used for this study, and they included i. Brief Emotional Intelligence Scale (Davies, Lane, Devonport & Scott, 2010) ii. Organizational Cynicism Scale (Dean, Brandes & Dharwadkar, 1998) iii. Organizational Citizenship Behaviour Scale (Smith, Organ & Near, 1983) 7 Brief Emotional Intelligence Scale Emotional intelligence was measured using 10-item Brief Emotional Intelligence Scale (Davies, Lane, Devonport & Scott, 2010) designed to measure the ability of individuals to evaluate, regulate and utilize emotions. The scale has subscales that measured appraisal of own emotions, appraisal of others’ emotion, regulation of own emotions, regulation of other’s emotions and utilization of emotions. Sample item reads “I know why my emotions changes”. Ratings were made using 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). Davies, Lane, Devonport and Scott (2010) reported a test-retest reliability of .48 for appraisal of own emotions, .35 for appraisal of other’s emotions, .40 for regulation of own emotions; .41 for regulation of other’s emotions, and .40 for utilization of emotions. Davies et al., (2010) also obtained validity of .97 for the entire scale. Ugwu, Enwereuzor, Finber and Ugwu (2017) obtained a Cronbach’s alpha of .76 for the scale. The researcher conducted a pilot study using seventy (70) lecturers (males and females) drawn from university of Nigeria Enugu Campus (UNEC) to determine the reliability of the instrument. The researcher obtained a Crobach’s alpha of .70 for appraisal of own emotions, appraisal of other’s emotions = .64, regulation of own emotions =.75, regulation of other’s emotions = .58 and utilization of emotions = .64. Organizational Cynicism Scale Organizational cynicism was measured using 13-item Organizational Cynicism Scale (Dean, Brandes & Dharwadkar, 1993) designed to measure employee’s negative attitudes towards their organization based on three subscales namely cognitive, affective and behavioural dimension of organizational cynicism. Sample item reads “I believe my company says something and does another”. Ratings were made using 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Dean, Brandes and Dharwadkar (1998) obtained a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.36. A pilot study was conducted by the researcher to determine the reliability of the instrument in the present study. Seventy (70) lecturers (males and females) drawn from University of Nigeria Enugu Campus (UNEC) participated in the pilot study. The researcher reported a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.85 for 8 cognitive organizational cynicism subscale, .86 for affective organizational cynicism subscale and .89 for behavioural organizational cynicism subscale. Organizational Citizenship Behaviour Scale Organizational citizenship behaviour was measured using 21-item Organizational Citizenship Behaviour Scale (Smith, Organ & Near, 1983) designed to measure organizational citizenship behaviour among employees in an organization. Sample item reads “I help my colleagues who are absent by doing some of their jobs”. Ratings were made using 5-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (very often). Smith, Organ and Near (1983) obtained Cronbach’s alpha of .86 while Onyishi (2006) obtained internal consistency of .86. The researcher conducted a pilot study using seventy (70) lecturers (males and females) drawn from university of Nigeria Enugu Campus (UNEC) to determine the reliability of the instrument. The researcher obtained a Cronbach’s alpha of .67. Procedure The researcher obtained ethical approval from the Chairman Research Ethics committee Department of Psychology Enugu State University of Science and Technology Agbani for this present study (see Appendix A). An introductory letter was also obtained from the Head of Psychology Department, ESUT (see Appendix B). In addition, the researcher also obtained a letter of approval from the office of the Registrar, Enugu State University of Science and Technology, Agbani (see Appendix C). Thereafter, the researcher proceeded to the various Faculties to administer the questionnaire to their various lecturers in order to elicit their responses. Multistage sampling technique was adopted for the selection of the participants for this study. Stage one; the Faculties were divided into clusters using cluster sampling. Stage two; criterion sampling was used to select lecturers from Departments in the Faculties to select lecturers that met the set inclusion criteria (including only full-time lecturers with a minimum of M.Sc degree and had spent at least 3 years while excluding the adjunct, part-time, sabbatical, contract and also lecturers that had not spent up to 3 years in the University). The copies of the questionnaire were administered by the researcher with the help of research assistants (Heads of Departments) during working hours. The Heads of 9 Departments helped to administer and collect copies of the questionnaire within one month. Three hundred and thirty (330) copies of questionnaire were administered, 319 were properly completed and returned while 11 copies were discarded as a result of incomplete data and error in completion. The 319 copies (96.67%) properly completed and returned were used for analysis. Design and Statistics This was a cross-sectional survey as data were collected to make inferences about the population of interest at one point in time. Moderated hierarchical regression using SPSS version 25 was used for data analysis. This helped to determine the direction and strength of relationships among study variables as well as the moderating role. 10 Results Table 1: Summary of moderated hierarchical multiple regression of predictors of Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (N = 319). Organizational Citizenship Behaviour Step1 β Step2 Β Step3 Β Step4 Β Step5 β Step6 Β Step7 β Step8 Β Age .09 .07 .06 .06 .06 .07 .07 .06 Marital Status .04 .05 .05 .04 .04 .04 .04 .01 Gender .08 .08 .07 .07 .07 .07 .07 .08 Rank -.05 -.05 -.06 -.06 -.06 -.06 -.06 -.05 Years of Experience .07 .07 .07 .07 .07 .07 .07 .07 Educational Qualification -.07 -.09 -.08 -.08 -.08 -.09 -.09 -.09 Appraisal of own Emotions -.10 -.12 -.11 -.12 -.12 -.12 -.13 Appraisal of others Emotions .00 .00 -.00 -.02 -.02 -.02 -.02 Regulation of own Emotions .15 .15 .16 .16 .17 .17 .15 Regulation of others Emotions -.03 -.02 -.03 -.03 -.03 -.02 -.04 Utilization of Emotions .00 .02 .02 .02 .03 .03 .04 Organizational Cynicism .22** -.10 -.06 -.04 -.13 -.10 -.19 Cognitive Org. Cynicism .14 .14 .14 .17 .16 .22 Affective Org. Cynicism .03 .02 .02 .04 .03 .08 Behavioural Org. Cynicism .22* .20 .20 .23* .23* .26* App. of Own Emotions x Org. Cynicisms -.07 -.04 -.07 -.08 -.00 App. of Others Emotions x Org. Cynicisms -.06 -.11 -.13 -.05 Reg. of Own Emotions x Org. Cynicisms .11 .07 .16 Reg. of Others Emotions x Org. Cynicisms .06 .12 Utilization of Emotions x Org. Cynicisms -.32** R2 .034 .101 .113 .118 .120 .124 .126 .155 ΔR2 .034 .067** .012 .005 .002 .004 .002 .030** Note: * = P<.05, ** and ** = p <.001. 68 Results in Table 1 indicate that the first Moderated Hierarchical Multiple Regression shows that the control variables (age, marital status, gender, rank, years of experience and educational qualification) entered in step 1 of the equation were unable to explain any significant variance in organizational citizenship behaviour as a block and individually. In step 2, when the predictor variables (emotional intelligence as the moderator with its dimensions (appraisal of own emotions, appraisal of others emotions, regulation of own emotions, regulation of others emotions and utilization of emotions) and organizational cynicism were entered in the model as a block, they significantly explained 6.7% of the variance in organizational citizenship behaviour of university lecturers (R2 = .101, ΔR2 = .067, p< .001). Meaning that, the predictor variables (emotional intelligence and organizational cynicism) jointly predicted organizational citizenship behaviour hence, supporting hypothesis 1 and 2. In addition, in step 2, cognitive, affective and behavioural components of organizational cynicism jointly predicted organizational citizenship behaviour (β = .22, p< .01), thereby supporting hypothesis 1. However, the dimensions of emotional intelligence as independent factors did not predict organizational citizenship behaviour, thus did not support hypothesis 2. In step 3, cognitive and affective dimensions of organizational cynicism independently did not predict organizational citizenship behaviour. However, only behavioural component of organizational cynicism was able to significantly predict organizational citizenship behaviour independently (β = .22, p< .05), thereby supporting hypothesis 1. The entry of the two-way interaction terms at step 4, step 5, step 6 and step 7 revealed no significant two-way interactions between appraisal of own emotions and organizational cynicism, appraisal of others emotion and organizational cynicism, regulation of own emotions and organizational cynicism, and regulation of others emotions and organizational cynicism. Hence, did not support hypothesis 3. The entry of the two-way interaction terms between all the dimensions of emotional intelligence (appraisal of own emotions, appraisal of others’ emotions, regulation of own emotions, regulation of others’ emotions and utilization of emotions) and organizational cynicism in step 8 jointly yielded a significant interaction (R2 = 0.155, ΔR2 = 0.30, p<.001). This means that 69 emotional intelligence comprising all its dimensions moderated the relationship between organizational cynicism and organizational citizenship behaviour. This accounted for 30% of the variance in organizational citizenship behaviour. This therefore supported hypothesis 3. However, independently only utilizations of emotions negatively moderated the prediction of organizational citizenship behaviour by organizational cynicism (ß = - .32, p< .05), hence supporting hypothesis 3. Figure 2. Two-way interaction effects of utilization of emotion and organizational cynicism on organizational citizenship behaviour. 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 org.cynicism= -1SD below mean org.cynicism = +1SD above mean Utilization of Emotions Utilization of Emotions 70 Figure 2 has the simple slope difference regarding the effect of utilization of emotions on organizational cynicism under high or low (±1 SD) levels of organizational citizenship behaviour. Meaning that, when utilization of emotion is low, organizational cynicism has strong negative relationship with organizational citizenship behaviour, hence hypothesis 3 was supported. Discussion The first hypothesis which stated that organizational cynicism (cognitive, affective and behavioural) will predict organizational citizenship was supported as cognitive, affective and behavioural dimensions of organizational cynicism jointly predicted organizational citizenship behaviour. This prediction was further supported by behavioural component which independently predicted organizational citizenship behaviour. In the case of the behavioural component which positively predicted organizational citizenship behaviour, it is not in line with previous studies (e.g., Turkmen & Aykac, 2017; Yicmaz & Sencan, 2018) which found negative relationship between organizational cynicism and organizational citizenship behaviour. This inconsistency could be attributed to the variations in culture, experience and other demographic variables of the participants in the previous studies and the present study. However, other dimensions (cognitive and affective) independently and jointly did not support the first hypothesis because they did not predict organizational citizenship behaviour Considering the results, the second hypothesis which stated that emotional intelligence will predict organizational citizenship behaviour was supported because all the dimensions of emotional intelligence (appraisal of own emotions, appraisal of others’ emotions, regulation of own emotions, regulation of others’ emotions and utilization of emotions) jointly predicted organizational citizenship behaviour in this sample of university lecturers. Independently, none of the dimensions of emotional intelligence predicted organizational citizenship behaviour, therefore did not support the second hypothesis. Regarding the joint positive prediction, combination of all the dimensions of emotional intelligence moved in the same direction with the criterion variable, organizational citizenship behaviour of the university 71 lecturers. This is in congruence with previous findings (e.g. Sepehrikia, Shiraria, 2016; David & Elizabath, 2012; Segal & Afzal, 2013) which found positive relationship between emotional intelligence and organizational citizenship behaviour. This consistency between previous studies and the findings of this present study is an indication that emotional intelligence is not culture bound in the prediction of organizational citizenship behaviour. In support of the third hypothesis which stated that emotional intelligence will moderate the prediction of organizational citizenship behaviour by organizational citizenship behaviour, all the dimensions of emotional intelligence (appraisal of own emotions, appraisal of others’ emotions, regulation of own emotions, regulation of others’ emotions and utilization of emotions) jointly moderated this prediction. However, independently, only utilization of emotions negatively moderated the prediction. According to this negative outcome, utilization of emotions weakened the negative relationship between organizational cynicism and organizational citizenship behaviour. This result has given credence to previous studies (e.g., Zia, Saeed & Khan, 2019) which found that emotional intelligence negatively moderated the prediction of organizational citizenship behaviour by emotional insensitivity. Implications of the Findings The findings of this study have theoretical, empirical and practical implications. Theoretically, the findings of this study have given credence to the theoretical framework of the study, Social Exchange Theory (Homan, 1958) which postulates that control (emotional intelligence moderates the negative influence of organizational cynicism on organizational citizenship behaviour. For instance, the findings revealed that when lecturers have enough emotional intelligence in form of utilization of emotions, it cushions off the impact of organizational cynicism (behavioural) on organizational citizenship behaviour of lecturers in the university. Empirically, the findings of this study align with earlier findings (e.g., Turkmen & Ayack, 2017) which found an association between organizational cynicism and organizational citizenship behaviour. 72 Practically, policy makers in educational sectors especially in the University should design training programmes and create more conditions to boost the emotional intelligence of lecturers especially utilization of emotions. This will help to reduce organizational cynicism especially behavioural in order to enhance organizational citizenship behaviour. Limitations of the Study There are some limitations in this study. First, the study involving cross-sectional survey did not support causal inferences. Hence, it is suggested that experimental and longitudinal approaches should be considered in future studies. Again, self-report measure was used to obtain responses from the participants at one point in time and this might have caused social desirability responses, hence mixed method can help to improve the validity of the data from participants in subsequent studies. In addition, the generalization of the findings of this study should be applied with caution because the sample was drawn from only one University. Conclusion In view of the findings of this study which have shown that emotional intelligence especially utilization of emotions moderated the relationship between organizational cynicism and organizational citizenship behaviour, therefore emotional intelligence should be considered in order to enhance prosocial organizational behaviour such as organizational citizenship behaviour among lecturers. Reference Abraham, R. (2000). Organizational cynicism: Bases and consequences. Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs 126 (3), 269-292. Cartwright, S. and Schoenberg, R. (2006) 30 years of Mergers and Acquisitions Research. British Journal of Management 15, 51-55. David L.T & Elizabeth A.V (2012). “The relationship between emotional intelligence and organizational citizenship behaviour in university of South Alabama. Psychological Reports. 10 (3): 899-914. Dean, J.W Jr, Brandes, P. & Dharwadkar, R. (1998) Organizational Cynicism. Academy of Management Review 23, 341-352. 73 Hui, C., Lam, S. & Law, K. (2000). Instrumental values of organizational citizenship behaviour for promotion: A field quas-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology 85 (5). Hulbesleben, J. & Bellairs, T. (2015). What are the motives for employees to exhibit citizenship behaviour? Oxford handbook online Lepine, J.A, Erez, A & Johnson, D.E (2002). The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behaviour: A critical renew and meta analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1) 52-62. Nair, P. K. & Kamalanabhan T.J.(2010). “The Impact of Cynicism on Ethical Intentions of Indian managers. The Moderating Role of Seniority”, Journal of International business Ethics, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 14-29. Organ, (2018), Hazzi, (2018), Somech &Oplatka,(2015). Organizational citizenship behaviour: its construct clean up time. Human Performance, 10, 85-97. Ozler, D.E & Atalay, C.G (2011). A research to determine the relationship between organizational cynicism and burnout levels of employees in health sectors 1 (4), 26-38. Sepehikia A., Shirazi M. & Sargazi M. (2016). Relationship between emotional intelligence and organizational citizenship behaviours of employees among private Banks in Zahedan. Electronic Journal Biology, 124-10. Simha, A.F, Elloy, D. & Huang H.C (2014). The moderating relationship between burnout and organizational cynicism; Management Decision 52, (3), 482-504. Somech, A. & Drach Z. A, (2004). Exploring Organizational citizenship behaviour from an Organizational Citizenship behaviour from an organizational perspective. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 281. Smith, C.A, Organ, D.W & Near, J.P (1983). Organizational Citizenship behaviour, its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653-663. Turkmen, F & Aykac, E. (2017). “The Association between organizational cynicism and organizational citizenship behaviour A case study”. European Research Studies Journal, 742-753. Van Yperen N. (2017). Towards a better understanding of the link between participation in decision-making and organizational citizenship behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psy, 72 (3), 377-392. Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2006). Developments in Organizational Politics: How Political Dynamics affects employees performance in modern work sites. Cheltenha,: Edward Elgar. Zia, S.Y., Saeed, I. And Khan, N (2019). “Moderating role of emotional intelligence between emotional insensitivity and organizational citizenship behaviour. International Journal of behavioural research 11 (3), 99-107 Page 7