MSc Human Resource Management

(1)

MSc Human Resource Management

Master Thesis

The power of imagination - The moderating role of

imagination in the relationship between regulatory

focus and problem recognition.

Aline Fischer

Student Number: S3602966

E-Mail: a.m.fischer.1@student.rug.nl

16th of June, 2019

Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Onne Janssen

Co-Assessor: Dr. Tim Vriend

University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business

Word count: 12,628

Acknowledgement: I would like to thank my supervisor Onne Janssen for his helpful feedback

(2)

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Conceptual model………..…18

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Correlation Table……….25

Table 2: Regression Analysis - Hypothesis 1 – Incremental Opportunities………27

Table 3: Regression Analysis - Hypothesis 1- Radical Opportunities……….27

Table 4: Regression Analysis – Hypothesis 2 – Incremental Threats………..28

Table 5: Regression Analysis – Hypothesis 2 – Radical Threats………...28

Table 6: Regression Analysis – Hypothesis 3……….29

Table 7: Regression Analysis – Hypothesis 4………..30

Table 8: Regression Analysis – Hypothesis 5………..30

Table 9: Regression Analysis – Hypothesis 6 – Incremental Opportunities………31

Table 10: Regression Analysis – Hypothesis 6 – Radical Opportunities……….32

Table 11: Regression Analysis – Hypothesis 7 – Incremental Opportunities……….33

Table 12: Regression Analysis – Hypothesis 7 – Radical Opportunities……….33

Table 13: Regression Analysis – Hypothesis 8 – Incremental Threats………34

Table 14: Regression Analysis – Hypothesis 8 – Radical Threats………35

Table 15: Supplementary Regression Analysis – Incremental Opportunities………36

Table 16: Supplementary Regression Analysis – Radical Opportunities………36

Table 17: Supplementary Regression Analysis – Incremental Threats……….…..37

(4)

ABSTRACT

Due to the growing complexity of organizational contexts in a fast-developing world, employees are faced with several new and complex problem situations on a daily basis. The increasing demand of organizations to employ people that are able to adapt to new situations quickly, recognize possible problems, and solve them, leads to the need for an improved understanding of what motivates and drives people to recognize problems. However, most of the current research has mainly focused on the process of problem-solving, whereas problem recognition, the first step of that process, has been neglected so far. Since the way a problem is recognized impacts the result of the problem-solving process enormously, this study investigates whether imagination (spontaneous and controlled) moderates the relationship between regulatory focus (promotion and prevention focus) and problem recognition (in terms of opportunities and threats) by adopting problem discover and creation strategies. A field study with 201 respondents was conducted. The results of the study show that promotion focus leads to problem recognition in terms of opportunities by the use of problem creation strategies. Above that, the mediated relationship between prevention focus and problem recognition in terms of threat by problem discovery proved to be significantly positive. The findings imply that promotion-focused employees use the strategy of problem creation and recognize problems as opportunities, whereas prevention-focused employees use problem discovery as a strategy to recognize problems as threats. Contrary to the expectations, results show no positive significant moderation effect of imagination on the relationship between regulatory focus and problem recognition. Methodological limitations are discussed, and suggestions for future research are provided.

Keywords: problem recognition, chronic regulatory focus, imagination, problem creation,

(5)

1. INTRODUCTION

“If I had an hour to solve a problem, I’d spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem and 5 minutes thinking about solutions.” - Albert Einstein

We are living in a fast-developing world where employees are confronted with increasingly complex problem situations on a daily basis. Employees are not only confronted with problem situations in work environments, but they are also encouraged to take the initiative, develop creative solutions to work-related problems, and be innovative (Madjar, Chen, & Greenberg, 2011). New problems need creativity to be approached and solved and can concern more or less complicated issues. These days, companies lay there focus more and more on total quality management techniques, which consists of organizational efforts to create a permanent organizational climate where employees work on continuously improving their abilities (Ciampa, 1992). This explains the increasing need of innovative and progressive companies to employ people for personal development that and are able to adapt quickly to new situations, recognize possible problems, and solve them (Arundel, Lorenz, Lundvall, & Valeyre, 2007). In order to solve a problem efficiently, first of all, the problem must be recognized. Thus, problem recognition becomes increasingly relevant, since problems within organizations have grown to become more complex, and employees are confronted with new problems every day (Reiter-Palmon, & Illies, 2004; Pretz, Naples & Sternberg, 2003). Problems can be defined as a gap, that exists between the present and (un)desired state of affairs (Basadur, Ellspermann, & Evans, 1994). Numerous studies examined the process of problem-solving before, whereby they mainly focused on how people come up with solutions for problems, rather than focusing on how people recognize problems (Brophy, 1998; Pretz, Naples & Sternberg, 2003; Reiter-Palmon & Robinson, 2009). It implies that there is little existing knowledge so far about the underlying processes of problem recognition and what variables might influence it.

(6)

the efficiency, accuracy, and quality of sequential phases (Reiter-Palmon & Robinson, 2009; Pretz et al., 2003). Correspondingly, problems can only be adequately solved when the problem gets recognized. The understanding of factors influencing the problem-solving cycle is crucial as it can result in an increased quality of the problem recognition process and the following stages to solve the problem efficiently (Pretz et al., 2003; Reiter-Palmon & Illies, 2004). The relevance of this topic is furthermore pointed out by Liu et al. (2016), who suggest that facing and solving problems is perceived as being highly important for organizations in order to stay competitive. Above that, Reiter-Palmon and Robinson (2009) have called upon more research connecting problem recognition and individual values, as research showed that the way people recognize problems may be dependent on different values and goals (Reiter-Palmon, Mumford, Boes, & Runco, 1997).

Research has found that when dealing with problems, personally salient information cues were picked up quicker by participants than the ones that were not salient (Mumford et al., 1994). This indicates that the process of recognizing problems is linked to cognitive variables like regulatory focus since it determines the goals an employee strives for in life. Put in other words, self-regulatory processes might influence the way people engage in problem recognition. Therefore, as different self-regulation processes can lead to differences in picking up information cues, it is essential to investigate the link between regulatory focus theory and problem recognition further. The further need for investigation is underlined by the fact that the regulatory focus of a person influences whether someone is motivated by needs like growth and development (promotion focus) or driven by needs of security and safety (prevention focus). This is why it can be assumed that it also influences the way they approach and recognize problems, as they possibly interpret problem cures differently due to their regulatory focus (Brockner & Higgins, 2001; Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Higgins, 1987). Van Dijk and Kluger (2004) support that assumption as they stress that an employees’ regulatory focus can be described as a personal difference that might influence the way people perceive problems in general. Above that, scientific research differs between strategies people apply to recognize a problem – discovery, and creation of problems (Pretz et al., 2003).

(7)

strategies may lead to the recognition of different problems. Therefore, the present paper introduces a model in order to investigate whether self-regulatory processes of a person lead to problem recognition in terms of opportunities and threats through the use of either problem discovery or creation strategies.

Another personal difference that has been increasingly viewed as influential in human and organizational phenomena is imagination (Thompson, 2018), which can be defined as the cultivating and rationally placing of images, happening either in a spontaneous or controlled manner (Sepper, 2013; Casey, 1976). For instance, it has been shown that imagination can increase the perceived likelihood of an event (Cialdini, 2001; Carroll, 1978). Above that, imagination has also been demonstrated in research as being able to increase the intentions of a person to perform a certain behavior (Anderson, 1983; Cialdini, 2001). Thus, it might interact in the relationship between regulatory focus and problem recognition if a persons’ imagination is rather high than low. Nevertheless, researchers stress that there are still little insights about the influences of imagination in organizational contexts as well as the influences of the different forms of imagination (Alvarez & Merchan, 1992; Carlsen, 2006; Cornelissen, 2013). This is problematic, as research of Komporozos-Athanasiou and Fotaki (2015; 1) claims that imagination is “where it all begins” when setting organizational processes in motion. Above that, research has found that imagination is influencing organizational processes as organizational change (French, 2001; Morgan, 1997), as well as framing (Werner & Cornelissen, 2014).

(8)

people, as they strive to avoid losses and therefore recognize problems by adopting problem discovery strategies. That relationship might be strengthened through imagination since imagining a potential threat for their current state, their attention might be guided more pronounced to attend to a pattern of cues in order to recognize a problem.

Based on this, the following research question arises: In what way does imagination

moderate the by problem recognition strategies mediated relationship between regulatory focus and problem recognition?. The question will be answered in the context of this research, by

introducing imagination as a moderator that shapes the relationship between regulatory focus and the use of strategies. The proposed relations will be investigated by conducting field research, examining the influence of regulatory focus on problem recognition, mediated by problem recognition strategies and moderated by imagination (see Figure 1).

To sum up, this study will have several theoretical implications. First, it contributes to the field of problem recognition, since further insights on the underlying processes of employees’ problem recognition will be provided. This study gives indications on what motivates and drives people to recognize problems, what kind of problems they recognize and what strategies they use to recognize them (Artley, Van Horn, Friedrich, & Carroll, 1980; Reiter-Palmon, Mumford, O’Conner Boes, & Runco, 1997). Furthermore, it contributes to previous research on problem recognition to distinguish between discovering and creating problem recognition strategies, as well as the recognition of incremental and radical problems, indicating how people engage in problem recognition. Lastly, this study contributes to research by investigating how the tendency to engage in controlled and spontaneous imagination might moderate the relationship between regulatory focus tendencies and the application of creation and discovery strategies in order to recognize a problem. Thereby, theoretical implications about how, why, and when people recognize problems in a certain manner will be given.

(9)

This paper will be structured as follows. Firstly, the role of regulatory focus, the mediating role of problem recognition strategies, and the moderating effect of imagination on problem recognition will be addressed, followed by the proposed hypotheses. Next, the method section, describing the procedures and measurement instruments that were used for this studies purpose, will follow, whereupon the results will be displayed. Lastly, the results will be critically analyzed in the discussion section, theoretical and practical implications will be given, and limitations, as well as suggestions for future research, will be proposed.

2. THEORY

2.1. Chronic regulatory focus and employee problem recognition

(10)

As the focus that people have when it comes to self-regulation influences what they are striving for in life and how they act in order to align themselves with their ideal versus ought selves, it can be assumed that these goals also influence the way they recognize problems in general. The process of problem recognition is crucial because it is the first step of the problem-solving cycle, influencing the efficiency, accuracy, and quality of sequential phases (Pretz et al., 2003; Bransford & Stein, 1993; Hayes, 1989; Sternberg, 1986). Problems can be defined as a gap, that exists between the present and (un)desired state of affairs (Basadur, Ellspermann, & Evans, 1994), whereas the term problem recognition is defined as the identification or finding of a problem by the problem solver (Basadur et al., 1994). Mumford, Reiter-Palmon, and Redmond (1994) developed the model of problem construction, which describes the cognitive processes of a person, implemented in finding, defining, and representing problems. The authors describe that the problem solver must first draw the attention to cues, patterns, and anomalies in their environment, whereupon the representation of the analogous problem must be accessed from memory. After that, the representations have to be evaluated, and the goals and constraints of the present problem are to be defined, leading to the elements of the problems being represented mentally. Empirical literature furthermore underlines a more specific model focused on problem recognition. Brophy (1998) describes pre-symbolic processes that set out goals in a problem situation and describes these as thoughts that are intuitive and happening in an unconscious way, combining perceptual pattern recognition, abstract analogy creation and the search for ways that are useful for organizing experience in problem domains.

(11)

The problem recognition process differs for individuals because it depends on the problem-solver perceiving the alternative state as either desirable or undesirable (Getzels, 1982). Thus, the gap between the current state and the alternative state might be interpreted as an opportunity when the alternative state is desired, and a threat when the alternative state is undesired. Meaning, that problem situations can be interpreted in multiple ways. Often in the interaction process of identifying a problem, a person makes choices about focusing on particular parts of the problem (Eden & Sims, 1981). Therefore, problems are, in many cases, not objective states to people but states that are subjectively interpreted, depending on the meaning that people give to the situation. These differences might relate to the role of personality differences (Artley, Van Horn, Friedrich, & Carroll, 1980; Reiter-Palmon, Mumford, O’Conner, Boes, & Runco, 1997).

As stated before, problems are complex, and problem recognition requires that the problem gets discovered by recognizing situational cues or created by using imaginal activity (Pretz et al., 2003). This implies that there are different mediation paths that people can take when recognizing problems - either the discovery or the creation path. Consequently, it can be assumed that the regulatory focus of people determines the strategy they use when it comes to recognizing problems. Since promotion-focused people strive for growth, personal development and positive outcomes in their life (Higgins, 1987), they are likely to be eager to recognize problems in order to improve their current state and grow personally. Since people with promotion focus strive for positive outcomes, the motivation to recognize problems in order to achieve their goals of personal development is high, which is why it is likely that they adopt both strategies in order to recognize problems. As their focus lays on constant improvement, people with promotion focus are probably highly motivated to focus on finding gaps in their current understand and connecting dots in order to recognize a problem. Thereby it can be assumed that promotion-focused people use problem discovery strategies to recognize problems. The above-mentioned eagerness for continuous improvement and growth most likely also enhances the motivation to create problems, as by solving them, people are able to grow from the experienced process of problem-solving and thereby develop themselves further. That is why it can be assumed that promotion-focused people also adopt problem creation strategies when it comes to problem recognition.

(12)

opportunities, and thereby chances for advancement, may help a person to reach success and generate positive outcomes. In other words, the recognition of opportunities can lead to self-advancement for people, which is why it is likely that a person is motivated to adopt several strategies to recognize problems in the best possible way. Combined with the fact that by the adoption of problem recognition strategies a problem is recognized (Pretz et al., 2003), it can be assumed that adopting problem discovery and creation strategies relate positively to problem recognition in terms of opportunities.

In addition to the conceptual arguments for the influence of regulatory focus on problem recognition, some indications for the proposed relations can be derived from current empirical research findings. Sassenrath, Sassenrath, and Scheepers (2016) found that promotion-focused people that are presented with demanding tasks interpreted the situation as an opportunity. Furthermore, research of Ciuchta, Letwin, Stevenson, and McMahon (2016) points out that employees’ regulatory orientation determines which type of information cues stand out for them in particular. That is that promotion-focused employees tend to direct their attention to positive information cues. The argumentation, as mentioned above suggests that the problem recognition strategies discovery and creation act as a mediator variable, clarifying the nature of the relationship between promotion focus and problem recognition in terms of opportunities. Resulting from this, I predict that promotion-focused people are likely to adopt discovery and creation strategies in order to recognize problems as opportunities since they are eager to improve the current situation and not afraid of taking risks and direct their attention to positive information cues. In this line of reasoning, the following hypotheses are being stated:

Hypothesis 1a: Promotion focus is positively related to the adoption of creation strategies.

Hypothesis 1b: Promotion focus is positively related to the adoption of discovery strategies.

Hypothesis 1c: The adoption of creation strategies is positively related to problem recognition in terms of opportunities.

Hypothesis 1d: The adoption of discovery strategies is positively related to problem recognition in terms of opportunities.

Hypothesis 1e: The adoption of creation strategies mediates the indirect relationship between promotion focus and recognition of opportunities.

(13)

Concerning problem recognition, scientific literature on regulatory focus states that prevention-focused people, on the other hand, might feel threatened by a problem. This is because they perceive problems as a potential threat that could danger their need for security. Concerning the adoption of problem recognition strategies, people with prevention focus might therefore not be very eager to adopt problem creation as a strategy. Adopting creation strategies would require them to create a non-existing problem. The fact that prevention-focused people strive to not worsen their current state by not taking any risks (Getzels, 1982) implies that it is rather unlikely for them to create a problem since problems pose a risk for their need of security in general. That is why people with prevention focus are more likely to adopt problem discovery strategies when it comes to problem recognition, as this strategy includes already existing problems that need to be solved, and the discovery could ultimately ensure a secure position by solving the problem.

As mentioned above, Getzels (1982) states that problems get interpreted as threats when a person perceives an alternative state as undesired. Combined with the previous argumentation for the link between prevention focus and the use of problem discovery strategies, it can be assumed that the adoption of discovery strategies relates to problem recognition in terms of threats. That is, because the recognition of cues signaling threats may help people to avoid failure as they are chances for decline. Put in other words, recognizing problems as a threat can secure the need of avoiding potential risk, because by recognizing the problem the person is thereby able to put effort into solving the problem and securing their current position. Therefore, the adoption of problem discovery strategies, by connecting existing dots, is likely to be used in order to recognize problems as a threat.

(14)

problem discovery strategies in order to recognize problems as threats, due to their eagerness to not worsen their current state by drawing their attention to negative information cues. Based on this line of reasoning, the following is hypothesized:

Hypothesis 2a: Prevention focus is positively related to the adoption of discovery strategies.

Hypothesis 2b: The adoption of discovery strategies is positively related to problem recognition in terms of threats.

Hypothesis 2c: The adoption of discovery strategies mediates the indirect relationship between prevention focus and recognition of threats.

2.2. The moderating role of imagination

The literature on imagination states that imagination is one of the most critical cognitive processes influencing various outcomes like learning, decision-making, the pursuit of creativity and innovation, expression of ideas, and critical thinking (Lin et al., 2014; Heath 2008; Trotman, 2006). Imagination can be defined as the process of cultivating and rationally placing of mental images (Sepper, 2013). Other authors of scientific literature refer to it as the capacity for seeing things in ‘one’s head’, or the ‘mind’s eye’ (Brann, 2016). Meaning, that imagination enables us to produce pictures in our minds of different scenarios. Research found that imagination enables us to “give credence to alternative realities” (Heath, 2008: 115). This implies that imagination will also influence the cognitive processes of recognizing problems as imagination is identified to “make associations and analogies between concepts previously considered unconnected” (Liu & Noppe-Brandon, 2009: 182). This is in line with the fact that when people recognize problems, they first must draw the attention to cues, patterns, and anomalies in their environment, and then make sense of them by a re-combinatory process and connecting the dots in certain ways (Mumford, Reiter-Palmon, & Redmond, 1994).

(15)

problem recognition. Therefore, as imagination is essential for the process of becoming aware of concepts that have been previously considered unconnected, this research assumes that the concept of imagination might operate as a cognitive boundary condition, regulating the effects of regulatory focus on the use of discovery and creation strategies for problem recognition. Scientific research differentiates two essential traits of imagination: spontaneous and controlled imagination (Casey, 1991; 1976). Controlled imagining is understood as the effort to manipulate images that come to the mind. It can be categorized into three sub-traits, namely initiation, guidance, and termination. According to Casey (1976), the initiation sub-trait concerns the ability of someone to induce a specific type of imaginative activity by the desire to do so. The second sub-trait, guidance, means the process of guiding our own imaginative experiences in whatever manner a person wishes for. Termination, the third sub-trait of controlled imagination describes the process of being able to annihilate the act-cum-presentation that the imaginer has initiates. A person can do that by either choosing to cease imagining or by replacing the imaginative experience with another different imaginative experience (Casey, 1976). To sum up, with controlled imagination a person is able to imagine what, how, and when he wishes to and therefore is without limits to imaginative power. Contrasting, spontaneous imagining is the process of self-generating thoughts and images and is characterized by the sub-traits effortlessness, surprise, and instantaneity (Casey, 1976). According to the author, effortlessness, in the context of spontaneous imagination, is the process of realizing that you already engage in imagining things without having made any preparatory effort to do so (Casey, 1976). The second sub-trait, surprise, deals with the process of being surprised by unexpected imaginal activity and designs. The third characteristic, instantaneity, underlines the fact that spontaneous imagination always occurs at once, and takes place like if it was a miniature mental explosion, whereas controlled imagining may occur in a graduate way and with considerable delay (Casey, 1976). Casey (1991) points out, that even though the traits seem to complement each other, nevertheless, they are exclusive because both forms of imagination cannot occur at the same time, meaning that people imagine either in a spontaneous or controlled way during a specific moment. Nevertheless, they are able to imagine a particular scenario spontaneously and then change to control their thoughts by applying controlled imagination techniques.

(16)

opportunities. Since a person that uses spontaneous imagination is able to build images in their head in an effortless, surprising, and instant way, spontaneous imagination potentially facilitates promotion-focused people to attend to create problem scenarios with the power of their imagination. This is because, in order to create a problem, the problem solver has to go beyond the current understanding and knowledge about a field and use imaginal activities in order to define the problem in the first place (Pretz et al., 2013). This process is similar to the processes included in spontaneous imagination like building images in an effortless, surprising, and instant way. By images coming spontaneously to a persons’ mind, a promotion-focused person might be able to imagine problem scenarios that need to be created in order to improve their current state. Therefore, taken together with the fact that promotion-focused people are eager to create problems as they are striving to optimize their current situation and develop themselves further, it can be assumed that the beneficial characteristics of promotion-focused people (eager for improvement) are more stimulated in people who experience high spontaneous imagination. Therefore, this study proposes that high spontaneous imagination abilities will lead to a stronger relationship between promotion focus and problem creation. In line with this reasoning, the following is hypothesized:

Hypothesis 3: Spontaneous imagination moderates the relationship between promotion focus and problem creation such that this relationship will be more strongly positive when spontaneous imagination is high rather than low.

(17)

Hypothesis 4: Controlled imagination moderates the relationship between promotion focus and problem discovery such that this relationship will be more strongly positive when controlled imagination is high rather than low.

Since prevention focus motivates and guides people to attend to a pattern of cues (discovery strategy) in environments signaling potential threats, it can be assumed that controlled imagination facilitates prevention-focused people to discover such patterns of cues and connect the dots. This is because when using controlled imagination, people intentionally guide their imagination towards a specific direction. By using this process, prevention-focused people might reflect more strongly about problems that could potentially threaten their current situation, and in order to make sure that their current state is not in danger, they use problem discovery strategies to solve the problem and maintain a secure position. Therefore, it can be proposed that controlled imagination strengthens the relationship between prevention focus and problem discovery strategies. In line with this argumentation, I propose the following:

Hypothesis 5: Controlled imagination moderates the relationship between prevention focus and problem discovery such that this relationship will be more strongly positive when controlled imagination is high rather than low.

2.3. Integrative moderated-mediation model of problem recognition

Taken together, I propose a moderated-mediation model to clarify why promotion focus and prevention focus is related to the recognition of opportunities and threats (through the use of strategies of discovery and creation) and what boundary conditions (spontaneous and controlled imagination) strengthen these mediated relationships. Accordingly, I formulate three hypotheses to test moderated-mediation models for recognition of opportunities and threats.

Hypothesis 6: The indirect relationship between promotion focus and recognition of opportunities through problem creation is conditional on spontaneous imagination such that this indirect relationship is more pronounced when spontaneous imagination is higher rather than lower.

(18)

this indirect relationship is more pronounced when controlled imagination is higher rather than lower.

Hypothesis 8: The indirect relationship between prevention focus and recognition of threats through problem discovery is conditional on controlled imagination such that this indirect relationship is more pronounced when controlled imagination is higher rather than lower.

Figure 1: Conceptual model of proposed indirect relationships between regulatory focus and problem recognition mediated by recognition strategies and moderated by imagination.

3. METHODS

In order to test the stated hypotheses, a field research was conducted. More precisely, the moderating effect of imagination on the by problem recognition strategies mediated relationship between regulatory focus and employee problem recognition was further examined.

3.1. Participants

A total of 201 respondents fully completed the survey. For the data analysis, the results of 101 respondents (Mage = 19.19, SDage = 13.36, 68.3 % female), who answered all attention

(19)

‘high school degree or equivalent’ (N = 11), ‘some college but no degree’ (N = 7), ‘associate degree’ (N = 1), ‘Bachelor’s degree’ (N = 48), ‘Master’s degree’ (N = 28), to ‘Doctorate’ (N = 6). The position they work or worked in range from ‘employee’ (N = 69), ‘team manager’ (N = 11), ‘department manager’ (N = 4), ‘division manager’ (N = 2), ‘director/ CEO’ (N = 3) to ‘other’, meaning other positions that were not named (N = 12). The mean of the amount of years respondents worked in the organization is 8.1 years, for what the selected minimum was 1 year and the maximum 43 years.

3.2. Procedures

(20)

3.3. Measurements

The measures for this study were chronic regulatory focus, imagination, as well as problem recognition of opportunities and threats, using either problem creation or discovery. The survey contained two attention questions to diminish inattention bias (Hauser, Hauser, & Schwarz, 2015).

Chronic Regulatory Focus. In order to measure chronic regulatory focus, a questionnaire developed by Vriend et al. (working paper, 2019) was used. The measurement measures different types of goals that people can pursue in life, divided into promotion-focused and prevention-focused goals. The participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they agree to nine promotion focus items (= .92) and nine prevention focus items (= .88) on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ (1) to ‘strongly agree (7). The 18 items were divided into six item pairs, dealing with the same kind of goal people can strive to fulfil in life. An introduction text was given respectively before the statement pairs to clarify the purpose behind the items. For instance, to measure promotion focus, the participants were asked to rate the following statement: ‘In life, I constantly strive to pursue my dreams.’. For prevention focus an example item is: ‘In life, I constantly strive to avoid undesirable outcomes.’.

(21)

For recognition of incremental opportunities, participants answered the following question: ‘How often do you recognize incremental problem opportunities requiring small

adoptions in order to make small improvements with regard to…’ and for recognition of radical

opportunities the following question: ‘How often do you recognize radical problem

opportunities requiring ground-breaking adoptions in order to make major innovations with regard to…’. The four items for both questions were ‘…products or services’, ‘… work equipment (i.e., machinery, instrumentation, applications, tools)’, ‘… methods and work procedures’, and ‘… organization of work’. To measure problem recognition in terms of threats,

participants were asked to rate four items for recognition of incremental threats (= .85) and four items for recognition of radical threats (= .91) by using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from ‘never’ (1) to ‘always’ (7). For recognition of incremental threats, the following question was asked: ‘How often do you recognize incremental threats requiring small declines with

regard to …’ and for recognition of radical threats: ‘How often do you recognize radical threats requiring ground-breaking adaptations in order to avoid major declines with regard to…’.

Both questions contained again the same four items: ‘…products or services’, ‘… work

equipment (i.e., machinery, instrumentation, applications, tools)’, ‘… methods and work procedures’, and ‘… organization of work’.

Further, strategies for recognizing problems as opportunities and threats were measured with the same questionnaire by Janssen and Vriend (working paper, 2019). The items measure whether creation or discovery strategies are being adapted to recognize problems as opportunities and threats. In order to measure what strategies participants use to recognize problems as opportunities, the participants were asked to rate three items for problem discovery strategies (= .71) and three items for problem creation strategies (= .89). For recognizing threats, the participants also rated three items for problem discovery strategies (= .88) and threat creation strategies (= .89). The participants were asked to indicate to which extent they agreed with the statement using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ (1) to ‘strongly agree’ (7). The preamble for problem recognition of opportunities was ‘At work I

recognize problems as opportunities for improvement and innovation…’ and for problem

recognition of threats the preamble was ‘At work, I recognize problems as threats and risks of

(22)

Imagination. To measure the imaginal activity of the participants, items were derived for this study purpose from the two-factor imagination scale by Thompson (2017). The 12 items were split into two categories in order to measure the extent to which the participants engage in controlled and spontaneous imagination (Janssen & Vriend, 2019). The participants were asked to rate six items for spontaneous imagination (= .90) and six for controlled imagination (= .78). The participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they agree to the 12 statements, using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ (1) to ‘strongly agree’ (7). For spontaneous imagination an example item is: ‘My imagination persistently generates

daydreams and fantasies without any conscious effort on my part.’. For controlled imagination

an example item used is: ‘I use my imagination mainly for practical means, e.g., like how to

work out a problem or construct a useful idea or object.’.

Control Variable. Control variables are used to increase the validity of this study. Besides gender and age, the level of formal education will be controlled. It has been shown in previous studies that the level of formal education has a significant effect on problem recognition since the years spent in school or University might explain differences in abilities to recognize problems in complex problem situations (Schultz, 1967). Above that, it was controlled for Chronic Regulatory Focus to preclude that someone’s focus tendencies caused the observed effects instead of the tested focus. Therefore, it was included as a control variable in the models where Chronic Regulatory Focus was tested.

3.4. Data Analysis

(23)

moderated-mediation analyses were performed using model 7 of the macro PROCESS (Hayes, 2013). For all tests, an alpha of .05 was handled, and an interaction effect through bootstrapping the confidence interval, working with 5000 samples, was used (Shrout & Bolger, 2002). Standardized coefficients are reported in the following tables due to an automatic standardization of the variables. The covariates that significantly correlate with the outcome variables and/ or mediator variables are incorporated in the regression analyses (Becker, 2005).

4. RESULTS

4.1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

The data is distributed normally for both the predictor variables and the dependent variables. Table 1 below provides the descriptive statistics, internal consistencies, and intercorrelations for the studies variables. The results show that promotion focus significantly correlates with discovery of opportunities strategies (r = .20, p = .04) and creation of opportunities strategies (r = .49, p = .00). Above that, a significant correlation was found with the creation of threats strategies (r = .23, p = .02), spontaneous imagination (r = .42, p = .00) as well as the recognition of incremental opportunities (r = .39, p = .00) and radical opportunities (r = .28, p = .01). Above that, the findings show that prevention focus significantly correlates with controlled imagination (r = .48, p = .00) and incremental threats (r = .24, p = .02). Interestingly, a negative correlation with creation of opportunities and spontaneous imagination was found (r = -.21, p = .03). Additionally, discovery of opportunities strategies correlate significantly with spontaneous imagination (r = .23, p = .02) and the recognition of incremental opportunities (r = .31, p = .00).

(24)

(25)

(26)

4.2. Hypothesis Testing

(27)

Table 2: Regression Analysis - Hypothesis 1 – Incremental Opportunities

Table 3: Regression Analysis - Hypothesis 1- Radical Opportunities

(28)

well. In order to test the mediation effect, hypothesis 2c suggests that the adoption of discovery strategies mediates the indirect relationship between prevention focus and recognition of threats. Inconsistent with this hypothesis, Table 4 indicates an insignificant indirect effect on recognition of incremental problems (B= -.00, SE= .05, CI: -.00 to .20) as well as recognition of radical threats (B= .10, SE= .05, CI: -.02 to .19). Therefore, hypothesis 2c cannot be supported.

Table 4: Regression Analysis – Hypothesis 2 – Incremental Threats

Table 5: Regression Analysis – Hypothesis 2 – Radical Threats

(29)

MACRO by Hayes (2013) was performed. Tables 6, 7 and 8 display the coefficients, standard errors, p-values, the interaction effect, and R-square for the respective analyses. As can be seen in Table 6, spontaneous imagination did not moderate the relationship between promotion focus and opportunity creation strategies; the interaction between spontaneous imagination and promotion focus did not reach a significant level (B=-.03, SE= .07, n.s.). Interestingly, spontaneous imagination and creation of opportunities show a positive significant effect (B= .57, SE= .09, p= .00).

Table 6: Regression Analysis – Hypothesis 3

(30)

Hypothesis 5 suggests that controlled imagination moderates the relationship between prevention focus and the discovery of threat strategies such that this relationship will be more strongly positive when controlled imagination is high rather than low. The results show a non-significant negative interaction effect (B= -.10, SE= .10, n.s.). Sadly, the hypothesis can, therefore, not be supported as well.

(31)

Hypothesis 6 tested whether the indirect relationship between promotion focus and recognition of opportunities through problem creation strategies is conditional on spontaneous imagination such that this indirect relationship is more pronounced when spontaneous imagination is higher rather than lower. As can be seen in Table 9, the closer examination of the conditional indirect effects reveals that the indirect relationship between promotion focus and recognition of incremental opportunities through problem creation strategies remains significant regardless of low (B= .12, SE= .05, CI: .02 to .22) or high levels (B= .09, SE= .06, CI: .02 to .23) of spontaneous imagination. Surprisingly, the indirect effect of promotion focus on recognition of radical opportunities through problem creation strategies displayed in Table 10, did not remain significant for a high level of spontaneous imagination (low: B =.12, SE= .05, CI: .02 to .23; high: B= .06, SE= .05, CI: -.00 to .20). Nevertheless, the results of hypothesis 3 show that spontaneous imagination does not have a significant moderating effect on the relationship between promotion focus and the creation of opportunities strategy. Thus, hypothesis 6 cannot be supported.

(32)

Table 10: Regression Analysis – Hypothesis 6 – Radical Opportunities

(33)

Table 11: Regression Analysis – Hypothesis 7 – Incremental Opportunities

(34)

Sadly, also hypothesis 8, proposing that the indirect relationship between prevention focus and recognition of threats through problem discovery strategies is conditional on controlled imagination such that this indirect relationship is more pronounced when controlled imagination is higher rather than lower, could not be supported by the results. As Table 13 and 14 display, the indirect relationship was not significant at low or high levels of controlled imagination for incremental threats (low: BE= .09, SE= .05, CI: -.02 to .18; high: B= -.05, SE= .04, CI: -.01 to .14) or radical threats (low: B= .08, SE= .06, CI: -.05 to .18; high: B= .05, SE= .04, CI: -.03 to .13).

(35)

Table 14: Regression Analysis – Hypothesis 8 – Radical Threats

4.3. Supplementary Analysis

(36)

Table 15: Supplementary Regression Analysis – Incremental Opportunities

Table 16: Supplementary Regression Analysis – Radical Opportunities

(37)

Table 17: Supplementary Regression Analysis – Incremental Threats

Table 18: Supplementary Regression Analysis – Radical Threats

5. DISCUSSION

(38)

problem recognition in such a way that when imagination (spontaneous and controlled) is high, the mediated effects on problem recognition are more positively pronounced. By conducting field research, contrary to expectations, no significant moderator effects of spontaneous as well as controlled imagination were found.

The results of this study exhibit that employees with a promotion focus use problem creation and discovery strategies in order to recognize problems as opportunities. Interestingly, only the adoption of creation strategies leads to the recognition of incremental as well as radical threats. The adoption of discovery strategies showed no significant relationship with either recognition of incremental or radical opportunities. Meaning, that employees who use problem creation as a strategy are more likely to actually recognize incremental as well as radical problems as an opportunity, than by adopting problem discovery as a recognition strategy. Furthermore, it was found that the adoption of those creation strategies mediates the indirect relationship between promotion focus and recognition of opportunities, whereas discovery strategies do not mediate that relationship. This implies that the use of creation strategies is more effective for people with a promotion focus in order to recognize problems as opportunities. Thereby, new insights about the strategies people apply in order to recognize problems are given by establishing that promotion-focused people recognize problems by applying problem creation strategies and recognize problems as opportunities.

(39)

concluded that people with prevention focus tend to recognize problems as threats by adopting problem discovery strategies.

Furthermore, it was hypothesized that the moderator imagination influences the different problem recognition paths (Hypothesis 3, 4, and 5), but sadly, no significant moderator effect was found. The results imply that spontaneous imagination does not moderate the relationship between promotion focus and the adoption of problem creation strategies. Above that, it was found that also controlled imagination does not have a moderating effect on the relationship between promotion focus and the adoption of problem discovery strategies. Further, the results show no significant moderating effect of controlled imagination on the relationship between prevention focus and discovery strategies. The fact that people are able to control their imagination and choose when to use it (Casey, 1976) might explain this insignificant moderation effect. Casey (1976) stresses that controlled imagination includes the ability of the imaginer imagining what, how, and when he or she wishes to. This indicates that an employee has the power to decide whether he or she wants to imagine a problem. Therefore, prevention-focus tendencies might lead to people not being eager to approach problems because they are afraid that recognizing a problem might worsen their current state (Getzels, 1982). The findings of Casey (1976) and Lyles and Mitroff (1980) might also explain why no moderation effect was found for spontaneous imagination. In his research, Casey (1976) underlines the fact that spontaneous imagination happens in an effortless, surprising, and instant way, meaning that the imaginer does not control at what time the process of imagination is happening and has to draw their attention to the processes going on in their mind instantly. Lyles and Mitroff (1980) stress that the problem environment also plays a role when it comes to problem recognition. These findings combined can be listed as a potential reason for the insignificance, because a hectic work environment might lead to employees not being able to focus on their imaginary activity. Therefore, spontaneous imagination might not moderate the relationship between promotion focus and problem creation strategies. Nevertheless, the results of the study show significant positive correlations and direct effects of imagination on problem recognition strategies and problem recognition itself.

(40)

creation strategies act as a mediator between spontaneous imagination and recognition of opportunities. Further, it was found that discovery strategies mediate the indirect relationship between controlled imagination and recognition of threats. The results suggest that spontaneous and controlled imagination are differentially related to the recognition of opportunities and threats through different problem recognition strategies. Thereby, the call of Brophy (1998), Pretz, Naples, and Sternberg (2003), and Reiter-Palmon and Robinson (2009) for insights about how people recognize problems is being answered.

As the findings did not show any significant moderating effects of imagination on the relationship between regulatory focus and problem recognition strategies; consequently, the moderated-mediation analyses did not reach significant results as well. Besides the above used arguments for the insignificant findings, research of Lyles and Mitroff (1980) can also be applied as a possible explanation, as they underline the fact that problem recognition is a function that does include not only cognitive processes (i.e. regulatory focus, imagination), but also problem environment and experiences in the past. Thereby, it is possible that the problem environment moderates regulatory effects, which is why it is advisable to investigate this interaction with future research. They further state that problem recognition takes place at an organizational level and not solely at an individual level. Thus, imagination as a moderator might not have shown any significant effects, as other external factors also influence the relationship between regulatory focus and problem recognition. It sounds plausible that external factors need to be included when it comes to problem recognition because especially the work environment has the power to influence this. The findings of Tierney, Farmer, and Graen (1999) also support this explanation, as they state that employees can feel intimidated by the requirements of a supervisor to perform a certain way, resulting in lower levels of creativity. As creativity is also involved in the problem recognition process (e.g., problem creation, imagination) (Pretz et al., 2003), these findings of Tierney, Farmer, and Graen (1999) might explain the insignificant effects of the moderator (Hypothesis 3-8).

(41)

the foci might differ from situation to situation. This could have led to inconclusive results in general, as situational factors that could potentially influence the focus of a person were not included in this study design.

5.1. Implications for theory and practice

The findings presented in this study offer several salient implications for existing theory and practice. To the best of my knowledge, the proposed model has not been investigated before. Due to the growing complexity within organizations, problem recognition has become more important over the past years (Reiter-Palmon & Illies, 2004). Scholars have argued that the way people engage in the process of constructing problems by problem recognition, problem definition, and problem representation (Pretz et al., 2003), has a major impact on the success of problems eventually being solved. Hence, researchers asked for more investigation in the field of problem construction. For this reason, this research answers the call of researchers to further investigate in the field of problem recognition (Reiter-Palmon & Robinson, 2009; Pretz, Naples, & Sternberg, 2003; Brophy, 1998; Lyles & Mitroff, 1980; Pounds, 1969).

(42)

(2004), who state that regulatory focus might influence the way people perceive problems in general.

Above that, even though many assumptions did not show significance, this study contributed to develop further and improve our understanding of other cognitive processes that influence problem recognition. Imagination has never been studied before in the context of problem recognition, which is surprising as the strategy of problem creation involves using imaginal activity in order to create a problem (Pretz et al., 2003). The findings provide new insights by showing that spontaneous imagination and controlled imagination relate differently to problem recognition. Spontaneous imagination correlates significantly positive with recognition of incremental and radical problem opportunities, whereas controlled imagination correlates significantly negative with recognition of incremental problem opportunities. These findings imply that those employees who engage in spontaneous imagination are more likely to recognize a problem as an opportunity than employees that use controlled imagination techniques. Further, because the correlation shows a negative effect, it can be concluded that controlled imagination leads to negative effects of problem recognition, meaning employees tend not to recognize problems.

Based on the findings, practical implications can be made. It is advisable for organizations to make use of these findings in order to select the right employees for certain positions. If the organizational environment is rather dynamic, hence calling for employees able to recognize problems in order to guarantee continuous development, it would be useful to recruit promotion-focused people as the results show that they use problem creation and discovery strategies in order to recognize problems as opportunities. This way, organizations make sure that they employ people that are able to bring the firm forward by recognizing problems. Especially for companies that integrate total quality management techniques, and thereby make an effort to create a permanent organizational climate where employees focus on improving their abilities (Ciampa, 1992), it seems important to employ promotion-focused people that are able to make use of both problem recognition techniques, discovery, and creation. This is because they are more likely to strive for personal development and use problem recognition techniques in order to improve their current state. Therefore, it is advisable for companies to recruit employees that are able to recognize complex problems in their every-day working life in order to improve their work.

(43)

to employ people who recognize problems as threats and whose goal it is to maintain their secure position. Therefore, it is advisable to include assessment instruments that predict employees who recognize threats into their selection tools in order to choose employees that match their requirements.

5.2. Limitations and future research

Although this research led to several interesting contributions to the literature and practice, it also has some limitations. Firstly, the study has relied on cross-sectional measures as the participants completed the questionnaire by self-reports, making the answers to the questions subjective instead of objective. Therefore, it cannot be assured that a person really has the tendency to be promotion- or prevention-focused, or actually recognizes problems the way she or he indicated to do so. Another limitation of cross-sectional methods is that the relationship has only been investigated at one single point of time, meaning that no time-related changes have been included in the research (Bergh, 1995). Therefore, this research might suffer from an inability to determine the right causal relationship (Hill & Hansen, 1991). In order to overcome this bias, Bowen and Wiersema (1999) suggest the adoption of analytical methods that use pooled time-series. Research of Cook, Campell & Shadish (2002) shows that data that was collected over a more extended period show more reliable results. Therefore, I propose that future research should also focus on longitude studies in order to increase reliability. Above that, due to the exclusive use of self-reports for all variables, the problem of mono-method variance might have influenced the measured outcomes. This is because relationships between variables that have been measured with the same self-report survey are likely to be inflated due to the action of common method variance, also known as monomethod bias (Spector, 2006). In order to reduce monomethod biases, it is advisable for future research to include observers, peers, or supervisors, objective measures, statistical control, and a variety of methods to establish the validity of conclusions that are based on initial monomethod studies (Spector, 2006).

(44)

answer the questions without paying much attention to the meaning. Adding upon this is the fact that many participants did not fulfil the requirement of answering in a certain way to the attention questions. Out of 201 participants that completed the survey, only 101 answered to the attention questions satisfactorily. This can possibly be explained by the fact that some questions were too demanding and complex, and the participants therefore, instead ‘flew over’ the questionnaire. Thus, in future research, the survey should be provided in the native language of all participants, to ensure the accurate understanding of the posed questions.

In addition to that, the data was only collected in western countries, as the link was mainly spread over networks in the Netherlands and Germany. Data collection in other countries like Asia or Africa may have resulted in different results, like Lee, Aaker, and Gardner (2000) found that regulatory focus can be moderated by culture. They stress in their research that for example, people from Asia are very much likely to react in an attentive way to negative information (Lee et al., 2000). For this reason, I propose that in future research, also other countries should be included in the data collecting in order to investigate the possibility of cultural differences. Another possibility would be to control for culture, in order to exclude that bias out of the research. Thirdly, it has to be acknowledged that the scales for problem recognition of incremental and radical opportunities or threats have never been tested in prior research. In turn, the results of the four-item scales may not have been reliable. Even though the reliability was very high when tested for this studies purpose, it needs to be tested further whether the scales provide a reliable outcome. Lastly, as already mentioned, no external factors were included to assess problem recognition. Research showed that factors like the problem environment and past experiences play a role in problem recognition (Lyles & Mitroff, 1980), which is why it is advisable for future research to include those factors into future research designs assessing problem recognition. By doing so, the results will be more accurate and predict more accurately the relationship with other variables.

6. CONCLUSION

(45)

(46)

REFERENCES

Anderson, C. A. (1983). Imagination and expectation: The effect of imagining behavioral scripts on personal intentions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 293–305.

Artley, N. L., Van Horn, R., Friedrich, D. D., & Carroll, J. L. (1980). The relationship between problem finding, creativity, and cognitive style. Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 5(1), 20–26.

Arundel, A., Lorenz, E., Lundvall, B. A., & Valeyre, A. (2007). The Organization of

Work and Innovative Performance: a comparison of the EU-15. Maastricht: United Nations

University.

Basadur, M., Ellspermann, S., & Evans, G. (1994). A new methodology for formulating ill- structured problems. Omega, 22(6), 627–645.

Becker, T. E. (2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational

Research Methods, 8(3), 274-289.

Bergh, D. D. (1995). Problems with repeated measures analysis: Demonstration with a study of the diversification and performance relationship, Academy of Management Journal, 38(6), 1692–1708.

Bowen, H. P. & Wiersema, M. F. (1999). Matching method to paradigm in strategy research: Limitations of cross-sectional analysis and some methodological alternatives.

Strategic Management Journal, 20, 625-636.

Brann, E. T. H. (2016). The world of the Imagination: Sum and Substance. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.

Brockner, J., Higgings, E. T., Low, M. B. (2004). Regulatory focus theory and the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Business Venturing. 19 (2), 203-220.

(47)

Carroll, J. S. (1978). The effect of imagining an event on expectations for the event: An interpretation in terms of the availability heuristic. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,

14, 88–96.

Casey, E. (1976.) Imagining: A Phenomenological Study. Indiana: University Press.

Casey, E. (1991). Spirit and Soul; Essays. Philosophical Psychology. Washington: Spring Pub.

Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Systematic opportunism: An approach to the study of tactical

social influence. In P. J. Forgas & K. D. Williams (Eds.), Social influence: direct and indirect

processes. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

Ciampa, D. (1992). Total Quality: A User’s Guide for Implementation. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.

Ciuchta, M. P., Letwin, C., Stevenson, R. M., & Mcmahon, S. R. (2016). Regulatory Focus and Information Cues in a Crowdfunding Context. Applied Psychology, 65(3), 490–514.

Cook, T. D., Campbell, D. T., & Shadish, W. (2002). Experimental and

quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Eden, C., Sims, D. (1981). Management Science Process—Subjectivity in Problem Identification. INFORMS Journal on Applied Analytics, 11(1), 68-74.

Coskun, H., Paulus, P. B., Brown, V., & Sherwood, J. J. (2000). Cognitive stimulation and problem presentation in idea-generating groups. Group Dynamics, 4, 307-329.

Cowan, D. A. (1986). Developing a process model of problem recognition. The

Academy of Management Review, 11 (4), 763-776.

Crowe, E. & Higgins, T. (1997). Regulatory Focus and Strategic Inclinations:

Promotion and Prevention in Decision-Making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Columbia: Columbia University.

(48)

Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2001). The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 1001–1013.

Getzels, J. W. (1982). The problem of the problem. In R. Hogarth (Ed.), New directions

for methodology of social and behavioral science: Question framing and response consistency.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hauser, D. J., & Schwarz, N. (2015). It’s a trap! Instructional manipulation checks prompt systematic thinking on “tricky” tasks. Sage Open, 5(2), 1-6.

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process

Analysis. A Regression-Based Approach. New York: Guilford Press.

Higgins, E. T . (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological

Review, 94, 319-340.

Higgins, E. T., Roney, C. J., Crowe, E. & Hymes, C. (1994). Ideal versus ought predilections for approach and avoidance: distinct self-regulatory systems. Journal of Personal

Social Psychology, 66 (2), 276-86.

Hill, C. W. L. and G. S. Hansen (1991). A longitudinal study of the cause and consequences of changes in diversification in the U.S. pharmaceutical industry 1977–1986,

Strategic Management Journal, 12(3), 187–199.

Janssen, O. & Vriend, T., Working paper.

Johnson, R. E., King, D. D., Lin, S. H. J., Scott, B. A., Walker, E. M. J., & Wang, M. (2017). Regulatory focus trickle-down: How leader regulatory focus and behavior shape follower regulatory focus. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 140, 29-45.

Lee, A. Y., Aaker, J. L., & Gardner, W. L. (2000). The pleasures and pains of distinct self-construals: The role of interdependence in regulatory focus. Journal of personality and

(49)

Liu, D., Jiang, K., Shalley, C. E., Keem, S., & Zhou, J. (2016). Motivational mechanisms of employee creativity: A meta-analytic examination and theoretical extension of the creativity literature. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 137, 236– 263.

Lockwood, P., Jordan, C. H., & Kunda, Z. (2002). Motivation by Positive or Negative Role Models: Regulatory Focus Determines Who Will Best Inspire Us. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 83(4), 854–864.

Lyles, M. A., & Mitroff, I. I. (1980). Organizational problem formulation: An empirical study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 102-119.

Madjar, N., Greenberg, E., & Chen, Z. (2011). Factors for radical creativity, incremental creativity, and routine, noncreative performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96 (4), 730-743.

Mumford, M. D., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Redmond, M. R. (1994). Problem construction

and cognition: Applying problem representations in ill-defined domains. In M. A. Runco (Ed.),

Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity (pp. 1–39). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Meiser, T. & Machunsky, M. (2008). The Personal Structure of Personal Need for Structure. A Mixture-Distribution Rasch Analysis. European Journal of Psychological

Assessment, 24 (1), 27-34.

Moskowitz, G. B. (1993). Individual differences in social categorization: The influence of personal need for structure on spontaneous trait inferences. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 65, 132-142.

Pretz, J. E. & Naples, A. J. & Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Recognizing, Defining, and

Representing Problems. The Psychology of Problem Solving. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of applied psychology, 88(5), 879.

Pounds, W. F. (1969). The process of problem finding. IMR; Industrial Management

MSc Human Resource Management