• No results found

ABUSIVE SUPERVISION AND REGULATORY FOCUS

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "ABUSIVE SUPERVISION AND REGULATORY FOCUS"

Copied!
55
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

HOW EMPLOYEE’S WORK PERFORMANCE CAN BENEFIT FROM ABUSIVE SUPERVISION: A REGULATORY FOCUS FRAMEWORK

Master thesis, MscBA, specialization Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

January 17, 2019 JULIUS SPECOVIUS Student Number: 2764962 Huygensstraat 133 9727 JC Groningen tel.: +49 (0)1621982996 e-mail: j.f.specovius@student.rug.nl Supervisor/ university prof. dr. O. Janssen

Acknowledgment: helpful comments on earlier drafts of this thesis were given by my colleague student in the MscBA/ Human Resource program, Danique Sentker.

(2)

How Employee’s Work Performance can benefit from Abusive Supervision: A Regulatory Focus Framework

Abstract

Tepper (2017) calls for a more balanced view on the concept of abusive supervision, requiring studies to investigate possible positive effects to gain a complete picture of abusive supervision. Using regulatory focus (RF) as a theoretical framework, this study examined the effects of abusive supervision on several work-related outcomes, such as creativity, work safety behaviour and in-role behaviour. The effects on creativity were proposed to be

mediated by work promotion focus, whereas the effects on work safety behaviour and in-role behaviour were supposed to be mediated by a work prevention focus. By means of an online scenario experiment among 98 participants, moderated-mediation analysis was performed to examine the data. Results established no effects of abusive supervision on work regulatory focus. Further, the concept of RF was not able to present a balanced view of the consequences of abusive supervision in the underlying study, as neither mediated nor moderated-mediation relationships could be established. In the end, implications, limitations and future research avenues are discussed.

Keywords: Abusive leadership; Regulatory focus; Regulatory fit; Creativity; Safety

(3)

How Employee’s Work Performance can benefit from Abusive Supervision: A Regulatory Focus Framework

The term “abusive supervision” was coined by Tepper, who conceptualized it as

“subordinates’ perceptions of the extent to which supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviours, excluding physical contact” (Tepper, 2000, p. 178). Numerous studies have demonstrated the detrimental effects abusive supervision can have, such as increases in workplace deviance, emotional exhaustion, family conflicts (Zhang & Liao, 2015), decreasing performances of subordinates, teams and organizations as a whole (Mackey, Frieder, Brees, & Martinko, 2017) and lower levels of executive functioning, psychological health and individual and group morale (Tepper, Simon, & Park, 2017). In his book “Abusive supervision”, the author Sebastian Urf has indicated that between 10 and 16 per cent of all employees in the USA are confronted with abusive supervision, resulting in annual costs of at least 23.8 Billion Dollar (Urf, 2013).

Since these negative consequences seem quite settled, Tepper et al. (2017), as part of their extensive meta-analysis, proposed a model that also hints at possible positive

(4)

mistreatment by high-ranking supervisors, which is common for this region, in comparison to the western society. Employees indicated feeling motivated to put in more effort when

confronted with a moderate level of abusive supervision, while this effect was not apparent with a low level of abuse (Lee et al., 2013).

As this positive effect of abusive supervision found might make sense for research from Asia, the underlying mechanisms need to be identified that can clarify why abusive

supervision might be able to produce more positive consequences of abusive supervision. In their review, Zhang and Liu (2018) speak from an “emerging trend in the possible positive effects of abusive supervision” (p. 2). Similar to Tepper and colleagues, they ask for a more balanced view on abusive supervision. The predominant research focus on costs has neglected potential positive effects. In response to this call, the present study uses a more balanced approach and adopts the concept of regulatory focus as a framework to examine both positive and negative effects of abusive supervision on several work-related outcomes. Using

regulatory focus theory as a framework is sensible, as its unique effect and added-value above other predictors of job performance (e.g. conscientiousness) has been established (Lanaj, Chang, & Johnson, 2012). For the present study, these job performance variables include creativity, work safety behaviour and in-role behaviour. Choosing these variables as the outcome variables is reasonable, as earlier studies have shown positive effects of both regulatory foci (promotion or prevention) on these factors. Creativity at work is often

enhanced through a promotion focus (Neubert, Kacmar, Carlson, Chonko, & Roberts, 2008), whereas safety and in-role behaviour are more related to an emphasized prevention focus (Neubert et al., 2008; Lanaj et al., 2012).

(5)

research to ultimately arrive at a full and more sensible picture of the term abusive supervision. Secondly, from a practical perspective, having a full picture should enable managers and supervisors in the organizations to realize both positive and negative consequences of abusive supervision, so that they know how, when and where abusive behaviour is most effective or ineffective (Zhang & Liu, 2018).

Theoretical Background Abusive supervision and employee regulatory focus

(6)

In their review, Johnson and colleagues (2015) describe three levels through which regulatory focus operates: system, strategic, and tactical. At a system level, overarching individual goals and end-state preferences are manifested. They shape a way in which people view their world. They either prefer to avoid pain (i.e. chronic prevention focus) or seek pleasure (i.e. chronic promotion focus). The strategic level encompasses the general means utilized for goal pursuit (Higgins, 1997). It operates independently of the system level. At the final level, the individual self-regulatory tactics are used in a certain situation. The tactical level is the “instantiation of strategy in a given context” (Scholer & Higgins, 2008, p. 490). Independent of their systematic preferences, individuals can self-regulate their behaviour to adapt to a situation (Johnson et al., 2015). For instance, when prevention-focused people undergo a loss state, but see no chance in regaining the status quo, they might engage in risky behaviours related with the promotion orientation. That is also why researchers came to the conclusion that prevention and promotion foci are orthogonally related factors, two distinct predictors of several work outcomes like job satisfaction or performance (Gorman et al., 2012).

In an organization, employees perceive several leadership behaviours “as an

organizational endorsement of promotion-focused or prevention-focused concerns and that this perception will influence employee behavior by eliciting a congruent state of regulatory focus” (Wu, McMullen, Neubert, & Yi, 2008, p. 587). Research has shown that certain leadership styles are directly related to a regulatory focus, with transformational leadership (Henker, Sonnentag, & Unger, 2015) or servant leadership (Neubert et al., 2008) being linked to a promotion focus and instrumental leadership being linked to a prevention focus (Tung & Yu, 2016).

(7)

conceptualization of regulatory focus (Johnson et al., 2015), I submit that leaders can influence employee behaviour by defining regulatory goals they are required to pursue, and that leaders thereby induce regulatory strategies in their subordinates that are crucial for goal achievement. In essence, leader can define minimal goals (i.e. oughts or security) or maximal goals (i.e. gains or advancement) for the subordinates at the system level, which will

subsequently cause a prevention versus promotion focus among subordinates at their strategic level. Setting minimal goals is clearly related to a prevention focus, whereas maximal goals relate to a promotion focus (Crowe & Higgins, 1997). From a dyadic leader-employee perspective, defining maximal goals instructs employees to adopt behaviours that should enable them to reach their desired end-state. On the contrary, setting minimal goals induces a prevention focus that translates into behaviour to maintain the status quo.

An abusive leader is characterized by a use of coercive power, relying on punishment (Pearce & Sims Jr., 2002), pressure, aggression and threat (Zhang & Liu, 2018) and

constantly displaying hostile verbal and non-verbal behaviours (Tepper, 2000). Abusive supervision is an active process of tyrannising and intimidating subordinates (Tepper et al., 2017). Following this destructive behaviour, abusive supervisors are likely to set minimal goals. They constantly remind their subordinates of negative consequences or punishments that might follow from a failure to achieve an expected goal. This is likely to induce a work prevention focus in organizational members that motivates them to avoid those negative consequences.

Based on the orthogonal relationship between prevention and promotion focus, a different argumentation and mechanism is needed to explain the relation between abusive supervision and a promotion focus. Abusive supervisors are very self-centered, mainly care about their own situation and are not overly interested in fostering development in

(8)

promotion of others. Consequently, it is unlikely that they would set maximal goals for their subordinates that might help them in their personal advancement and growth.

Therefore, referring to the destructive behaviour characteristic for an abusive supervisor and the resulting presence of minimal and absence of maximal goals, I predict:

Hypothesis 1: Abusive supervision is negatively related to work promotion focus.

Hypothesis 2: Abusive supervision is positively related to work prevention focus.

Chronic RF as a moderator of the effects of abusive supervision on Work RF

(9)

employee’s status quo, which prevention-oriented people would like to maintain. Besides, an abusive supervisor often actively prevents possibilities for self-growth and personal

development, which reflects promotion-focused goals (Tepper et al., 2017). As a conclusion, this would mean that individuals with a more pronounced chronic promotion regulatory focus are demotivated by an abusive supervisor, since he/ she likely induces a work prevention focus, resulting in a misfit between the system and the state regulatory focus. Similar,

individuals with a dominant chronic prevention focus are motivated by an abusive supervisor, as a consequence of the fit between what the abusive supervisor represents (i.e. threat to the status quo) and the chronic orientation. Thus, based on the regulatory fit idea and the impact of an abusive supervisor, I predict:

Hypothesis 3: The negative relation between abusive supervision and work promotion

focus is more pronounced for individuals high (rather than low) in chronic promotion

focus.

Hypothesis 4: The positive relation between abusive supervision and work prevention

focus is more pronounced for individuals high (rather than low) in chronic prevention

focus.

Outcome Variables

(10)

complete their work activities because of the anticipated economic and growth outcomes it provides. They are also motivated to accomplish work quicker (Wallace & Chen, 2006). On the contrary, employees with a prevention focus like to engage in their work duties out of a sense of obligation as well as avoiding negative outcomes. They are not necessarily interested in going the extra mile or bringing forward new ideas. Instead, their primary concern is to adhere to rules and responsibilities (Wallace & Chen, 2006). That is why promotion focus is primarily related to positive work performances and prevention focus is connected rather negatively to work performances. Nonetheless, a few critical work performances, which include a sense for responsibility and rules (e.g. safety behaviour or commitment), also show positive relations to a prevention focus (Gorman et al., 2012).

Moving forward, work performance in general is a multifaceted, complex concept encompassing different performance components (Greenslade & Jimmieson, 2007). For the underlying study, I chose to focus on the consequences of abusive supervision on creativity, work safety behaviour and in-role behaviour. The idea behind these three variables is that they are very diverse from each other, call for different individual requirements in their execution and should therefore be able to capture at least some of the multidimensionality of the concept of work performance. For instance, creativity is all about innovation and

discovery, whereas in-role behaviour has a more conservative aspect to it and asks for meeting expectations and following rules. Given their different nature, these three variables might be differentially related to abusive supervision and the regulatory foci.

(11)

advancements, fostering creative performance is progressively more perceived as crucial for organizational growth and survival (Amabile, Schatzel, Moneta, & Kramer, 2004). Creativity enables companies to respond adequately to unanticipated challenges and remain a

competitive advantage (Kijkuit & Van den Ende, 2007). This makes the concept of creativity a particular interesting variable to investigate. Studies have looked at the relationship between regulatory focus and creativity and consistently found a positive relationship (Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Förster, Friedman, & Lieberman, 2004). That is, a pronounced (work) promotion focus enhances creative performance. This makes sense, as promotion-focused individuals need to be innovative and creative to satisfy their need of pursuing gains and ideals (Neubert et al., 2008). Further, creative individuals are also characterized by a flexible mindset and a willingness to take risks to propose and implement novel ideas that contradict established and agreed-upon ways of accomplishing tasks (Baer, Oldham, & Cummings, 2003). This willingness to take risks to arrive at an ideal self is especially distinctive for individuals with a promotion orientation. Given this high overlap in terms of motivation between creativity and a promotion orientation, I predict:

Hypothesis 5: Work promotion focus is positively related to creativity.

(12)

with which employees are expected to conform to prevent such consequences. Studies investigating the relationship between regulatory focus and work safety behaviour show a clear association towards a prevention focus, as demonstrated in the meta-analysis by Lanaj and colleagues (2012). This can easily be explained by looking at the different motivations underlying the two regulatory foci. The motivation behind promotion focus is eagerness rather than vigilance, making employees with a (work) promotion focus susceptible to disregard safety regulations and policies. On the contrary, prevention focus controls the need for safety (Scholer & Higgins, 2008), which drives employees to adhere to rules and policies and to respect duties and obligations (Higgins, 1997, 1998). Consequently, this should motivate them to execute more safety behaviors. Furthermore, prevention focus is linked to goals of avoiding mistakes and errors and “adopting conservative avoidance tactics” (Lanaj et al., 2012, p. 1004). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that employees in a prevention focus will follow safety policies in order to circumvent perpetrating mistakes to ultimately keep their desired status quo (Wallace & Chen, 2006; Wallace, Little, & Shull, 2008). Based on this argumentation, I expect the following:

Hypothesis 6: Work prevention focus is positively related to work safety behaviour.

(13)

service or the manufacturing of a product (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). In contrast to that, extra-role behaviour of an employee encompasses behaviour that is not explicitly formulated within a job description or is expected of an employee, but promotes overall organizational efficiency (Becker & Kernan, 2003; Zhu, 2013). This might include helping others on their job or bringing forward new and innovative ideas to improve work outcomes.

Central to prevention-oriented individuals is their inherent need to comply with rules (Kark & Van Dijk, 2007). They are concerned with what they ought to do and want to act in accordance with expectations (Higgins 1997, 1998). Above all, individuals with a dominant prevention focus behave in a way that prevents negative consequences, punishments or degradations. By all means, they want to keep the status quo, thereby obeying to expectations and policies established by an organization or a leader (Higgins, Roney, Crowe & Hymes, 1994). Therefore, similar to the previous argumentation regarding safety behaviour, it is sensible to assume that employees in a prevention focus will follow directions and act in a manner that is consistent with explicit performance expectations, that is, engaging in in-role work behaviour (Neubert et al., 2008). Promotion-oriented individuals with their preference for risk are unlikely to show such obeying behaviour (Lanaj et al., 2012). They are more concerned with and motivated by reaching a desired end state, that is, seeking pleasure. By simply following rules and policies, promotion-oriented individuals do not feel that pleasure because their drive to approach is inhibited. They like to explore boundaries and bend the rules in order to quickly reach their ideal self. Consequently, I predict the following:

Hypothesis 7: Work prevention focus is positively related to in-role behaviour.

The Moderated Mediation Model

To conclude, given the proposed relationships between abusive supervision and work regulatory focus, and the proposed relationships between work regulatory focus and

(14)

Hypothesis 8: There is a negative indirect relationship between abusive supervision and

creativity through work promotion focus.

Hypothesis 9: The negative indirect relationship between abusive supervision and

creativity through work promotion focus is more pronounced for individuals high

(rather than low) in chronic promotion focus.

Hypothesis 10: There is a positive indirect relationship between abusive supervision and

work safety behaviour through work prevention focus.

Hypothesis 11: The positive indirect relationship between abusive supervision and work

safety behaviour through work prevention focus is more pronounced for individuals high

(rather than low) in chronic prevention focus.

Hypothesis 12: There is a positive indirect relationship between abusive supervision and

in-role behaviour through work prevention focus.

Hypothesis 13: The positive indirect relationship between abusive supervision and

in-role behaviour through work prevention focus is more pronounced for individuals high

(rather than low) in chronic prevention focus.

Figure 1. Theoretical model

(15)

Methodology

To examine the research question whether regulatory focus can clarify why abusive supervision might lead to both positive and negative consequences, the underlying study consisted of an online experimental survey, which was generated with the survey software from Qualtrics, version 12.2018 of Qualtrics (Qualtrics, Provo, UT, Available at:

https://www.qualtrics.com). In this survey, participants are asked to envision being the main character in a short scenario. In this scenario, they work as a waitress in a café, where they are confronted with a supervisor who shows clear signs of abusive and destructive behaviour towards the main character. This scenario should induce perceptions of abusive behaviour within the participants. Although Tepper and colleagues (2017) claim that such experimental studies lack ecological validity compared to the more common method of field survey methods, there is one definite advantage to this approach. In the same review, they determined that experiencing abusive supervision seems rare, and that even when there is anonymity, employees often are too afraid to report it (Tepper et al., 2017). Moreover, other researchers have shown that also hypothetical situations are likely to evoke similar reactions compared to real situations (Greenberg & Eskew, 1993; Wiseman & Levin, 1996). Therefore, to have a guarantee of variation in the level of abuse, conducting a Scenario Questionnaire Study with maximal control over the variables appeared to be the right decision. The second clear advantage over the field survey method is that by using an experimental setup, causation might be established between the variable being manipulated (level of abuse) and the outcome variables (work performance).

Procedure

Participants were sampled by spreading out the link to the online study via social

(16)

an abusive supervisor. The written scenarios differed in their level of illustrated abuse. Three conditions were created, a low-level, moderate-level and high-level of abuse. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of the three conditions. A manipulation check of the abusive behaviour and the work RF were assessed subsequently. In the final block, the participants should indicate behavioural tendencies in terms of creativity, work safety behaviour and in-role behaviour. In the end, subjects were debriefed about the actual purpose of the study and thanked for their participation. An overview of the different scales used can be found in Appendix A.

Participants

After twenty days of gathering data, a sample of 98 participants was collected. They had a mean age of 28.52 years (SD = 11.90), ranging from 16 to 67 years, and were almost

equally distributed in terms of gender, with 50 male participants. A vast majority of them have a German nationality (84.69%). Other nationalities include Dutch (5.1%), Greek (3%) or Chinese (2%). Regarding the educational level, the majority has a Bachelor’s degree (39.8%), followed by a Master’s degree (27.6%) and High school graduate (21.4%). The rest of the sample had less than a high school degree (11.2%). Finally, half of the participants were students (50.0%). Concerning the occupation of the other half, they were employed at management or professional jobs (15.3%), at the government (7.1%), at sales and office (16.3%), at service level (3.1%), at construction, extraction and maintenance jobs (4.1%), at production, transportation and material moving jobs (2%) or either unemployed (1%) or retired (1%).

Manipulation of Abusive Supervision

(17)

assess the effect of abusive supervision on self-esteem. However, in their study, they only differentiated between a high level of abuse shown by a supervisor and no abusive behaviour at all. There is a good reason to at least add a third level of abuse. Recent theoretical advances in the literature and research field of management and organisational psychology have

questioned the common method of establishing a linear relationship between leadership effectiveness and leadership style (Vergauwe, Wille, Hofmans, Kaiser, & De Fruyt, 2018; Yukl, 2012). Numerous researchers have indeed demonstrated that a more curvilinear course might be more realistic to capture such a relationship, since their studies showed that for instance too much leader assertiveness (Ames & Flynn, 2007) or too much leader-member exchange (Harris & Kacmar, 2006) actually has detrimental effects for leadership

effectiveness. This development is summarized under the too-much-of-a-good-thing (TGMT) effect (c.f. Pierce & Aguinis, 2013), meaning that every desirable trait or leadership style has an inflection point after which increases in the style become counterproductive (Vergauve et al., 2018). Transferred to the underlying study, this would mean that I hypothesize that

(18)

Measures

Manipulation Check. To check for the level of abusive supervision perceived by the participants in the written scenarios, Tepper’s (2000) 15-item questionnaire was used.

However, only the items applicable to the scenario were included, which resulted in 8 items in total. On a 7-point response scale, participants had to indicate the frequency of certain abusive behaviours (e.g. “Ridicules me”).

Chronic Regulatory Focus. Participant’s chronic regulatory focus was measured with the scale developed by Lockwood and colleagues (2002). It consists of 18 items in total and is divided into two subscales with nine items for the promotion focus (example item: “I frequently imagine how I will achieve my hopes and aspirations.”) and prevention focus (example item: “I often worry that I will fail to accomplish my professional goals.”),

respectively. Every item needs to be rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (fully disagree) to 7 (fully agree).

Work Regulatory Focus. Participant’s work regulatory focus was assessed with the Work

Regulatory Focus (WRF) Scale developed by Neubert and colleagues (2008). The design is

very similar to the chronic regulatory focus scale, since it also consists of 18 items with nine items for each subscale of work promotion (example item: “I tend to take risks at work in order to achieve success.“) and prevention focus (example item: “At work, I focus my

attention on completing my assigned responsibilities.“). Every item needed to be rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (fully disagree) to 7 (fully agree).

Work Performance. To assess participants’ work performances of creativity, safety behaviour, and in-role behaviour, they were instructed to imagine how they, still in their role as a waiter, would feel and behave two weeks after the incident with the supervisor, after which they could indicate the likelihood of engaging in creative, safety, and in-role behaviors.

(19)

In the original version of the scale, a supervisor is asked to indicate how characteristic each of the 13 behaviors is of the employee they are rating (e.g. “Comes up with new and practical ideas to improve performance.”). For our research purposes, the subjects had to indicate themselves how characteristic the 13 behaviours depicted in the items are (e.g. “I come up with new and practical ideas to improve performance.”). The answers are recorded on a five-point scale, ranging from 1 (“not at all likely”) to 5 (“very likely”).

Work-safety behaviour. Work-safety behaviour is assessed with a scale previously used by Neal and Griffin (2006). The scale used in the current study consists of nine items, with three items each measuring safety motivation (example item: “I feel that it is worthwhile to put in effort to maintain or improve my personal safety.“), safety compliance (example item: “I use all the necessary safety equipment to do my job.“) and safety participation (example item: “I put in extra effort to improve the safety of the workplace.“), respectively. All items were measured on a 5-point rating scale ranging from 1 (“not at all likely”) to 5 (“very likely”). Safety motivation refers to how much individuals value safety as part of their job. Safety compliance and safety participation evaluate actual safety behaviour likely to happen on the job.

In-role work behaviour. Finally, in-role work behaviour was assessed using items developed by Williams and Anderson (1991) as part of a larger study analysing the

relationship between organizational commitment and in-role behaviours. In total, the scale comprises seven items, with behavioural tendency statements like “I adequately complete assigned duties.” All items were measured on a 5-point rating scale ranging from 1 (“not at all likely”) to 5 (“very likely”).

Analytical Strategy

(20)

2013). To test hypothesis 1 and 2, a One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was conducted to test the relation between abusive supervision and work regulatory focus. Hypotheses 3 and 4 were assessed using the macro PROCESS (Hayes, 2012) on SPSS with chronic regulatory focus operating as a moderator. Model 1 of Hayes’ template fits the requirements. Hypotheses 5, 6 and 7 were examined by conducting linear regression analysis to evaluate the main effect of work regulatory focus on the three work performance variables. Hypotheses 8, 10 and 12 were tested by conducting a mediation analysis (Model 4 of Hayes’ Template) with work regulatory focus as the mediator between level of abuse and the three work performance variables. Finally, to test the full moderated-mediation model (Hypotheses 9, 11 and 13) with chronic regulatory focus as a moderator and work regulatory focus as a mediator, Model 7 of Hayes’ template was used.

Results Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations

Correlations were calculated between sociodemographic variables (sex and age), both regulatory foci (i.e. chronic and work foci) and the outcome variables (creativity, work safety behaviour and in-role behaviour). Some noteworthy correlations among the variables of interest will be shortly discussed. Table 1 provides the descriptive statistics and

intercorrelations.

Firstly, the scales for chronic promotion and prevention focus were not significantly related (r = -.08). The same is true for the relation between work promotion and prevention focus (r = .08). This again demonstrates the independence of the two regulatory systems. On the contrary, chronic and work promotion focus (r = .55) and chronic and work prevention focus (r = .43) were significantly related.

Next, and in line with Hypotheses 1 and 2, chronic promotion focus was unrelated to the perceived level of abuse (r = .02), whereas the opposite is true for chronic prevention focus (r

(21)

Finally, regarding the work performance variables, creativity is significantly negatively correlated to perceived level of abuse (r = -.24) as well as significantly positively correlated to chronic (r = .32) and work promotion focus (r = .44). Similarly, the subscales of safety motivation (r = .46) and safety compliance (r = .32) are significantly positively related to work prevention focus. Both findings are in line with hypotheses 5 and 7, respectively. Interestingly, the last subscale, safety participation, is positively related to creativity (r = .44) as well as chronic (r = .25) and work promotion focus (r = .21), which appears to contradict hypothesis 6. This might be explained by a more proactive nature underlying safety

participation, which encompasses activities that describe extra-role behaviour (e.g. Item 9: “I voluntarily carry out tasks or activities that help to improve workplace safety”), which are more related to a promotion focus.

Manipulation Check

To test the effectiveness of the scenario in displaying three different levels of abusive supervision, participants had to fill out a selection of items from Tepper’s (2000) scale. A simple One-Way ANOVA showed that participants perceived a difference in the three written scenarios [F2; 95 = 11.469, p < .001, ηp² = .19]. Post Hoc Analysis using Fischer’s Least

Significant Difference (LSD) method further showed that all mean differences between the three scenarios differ significantly. Firstly, the mean difference between the “low” and “medium” scenario in terms of Tepper’s scale was 6.91 (p = .006). Secondly, the mean difference between the “low” and “high” scenario in terms of Tepper’s scale was 13.39 (p <

.001). Lastly, the mean difference between the “medium” and “high” scenario in terms of

(22)

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelation

Notes. N = 98. Cronbach’s Alpha between parentheses on the diagonal. **. Correlation significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation significant at 0.05 level (2-tailed).

(23)

Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis 1 and 2. The first two hypotheses predicted an effect of abusive supervision on work regulatory focus, thereby testing whether abusive supervision was able to specifically induce a work promotion or prevention focus. To investigate it, two One-Way ANOVAs were conducted with level of abuse as the independent variable (IV) and the two work regulatory foci as dependent variables (DV), respectively. With work promotion focus as the DV, the analysis found no significant differences between the three levels of abusive supervision and a resulting work promotion focus [F2; 95 = .142, p = .868, ηp² = .0002].

Similarly, with work prevention focus as the DV, the analysis as well found no significant differences between the three levels of abusive supervision and a resulting work prevention focus [F2; 95 = .744, p = .478, ηp² = .015]. Therefore, it has to be concluded that a

certain display of abusive supervisory behaviour is not able to induce a work regulatory focus, which means that Hypotheses 1 and 2 cannot be supported. Table 2 gives an overview of the different means (divided by the number of items of each questionnaire) pertaining to the three levels of supervisory abuse. It also shows the (insignificant) main effects of abusive

(24)

Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations on the Measures of Work Regulatory Focus and

Work Performance as a Function of Level of Abusive Supervision Low Level of supervisory Abuse M (SD) Moderate level of supervisory Abuse M (SD) High level of supervisory Abuse M (SD)

Work Promotion Focus 5.17 (.99) 5.05 (1.01) 5.06 (1.08)

Work Prevention Focus 4.67 (1.01) 4.44 (1.04) 4.74 (1.1)

Creativity 3.04 (.83) 2.74 (1.05) 3.14 (.8)

In-Role Behaviour 3.92 (.79) 3.67 (.73) 3.76 (.44)

Safety Motivation 3.31 (.72) 3.21 (.97) 3.56 (.54)

Safety Compliance 3.59 (.95) 3.56 (.79) 3.73 (.85)

Safety Participation 1.15 (1.04) 1.13 (1.01) 1.29 (1.11)

Hypothesis 3 and 4. To test hypothesis 3 and 4, which is whether the relation between level of abusive supervision and work promotion is reinforced by a corresponding high chronic promotion focus, a moderation analysis utilizing Model 1 of Hayes’ PROCESS was

conducted. Again, level of abuse served as the IV and the two work regulatory foci as the DVs. Additionally, chronic regulatory focus was included as the moderator variable. With work promotion focus as the DV, the subsequent moderation analysis yielded a significant overall model [F3; 94 = 14.18, p < .001, r² = .31]. However, when looking at the main and interaction

effects, only the main effect of Chronic Promotion Focus was able to significantly predict Work Promotion [t = 2.84, p = .01]. The main effect of level of abuse [t = .07, p = .94] and the interaction effect between chronic promotion focus and level of abuse turned out to be insignificant when predicting work promotion focus [t = - .28, p = .78].

Similarly, with work prevention focus as the DV, the subsequent moderation analysis yielded a significant overall model as well [F3; 94 = 7.27, p < .001, r² = .19]. Nonetheless,

(25)

-.25, p = .81] nor the interaction effect between Chronic Prevention Focus and Level of Abuse

[t = .15, p = .88] turned out to be significant when predicting work prevention focus.

Therefore, it has to be stated that the relation between level of abusive supervision and work regulatory focus is not reinforced by a corresponding high chronic regulatory focus, which means that Hypothesis 3 and 4 cannot be supported.

Hypothesis 5, 6 and 7. Hypothesis 5, 6 and 7 were tested using linear regression analysis with the work regulatory foci as the IVs and the three outcome variables as the DVs,

respectively. For hypothesis 5, work promotion focus served as the IV and creativity as the DV. Regression analysis showed an overall significant model [F1; 96 = 23.42, p < .001, r² = .19] with work promotion being able to significantly predict creative behavioural tendencies [t

= 4.84, p < .001].

For hypothesis 6, work prevention focus served as the IV and work safety behaviour with the three subdimensions (safety motivation, safety compliance, safety participation) as the DV. The first regression analysis showed an overall significant model [F1; 96 = 26.31, p < .001, r² = .22] with work prevention being able to significantly predict work safety motivational

behavioural tendencies [t = 5.13, p < .001]. The second regression analysis also showed an overall significant model [F1; 96 = 11.24, p = .001, r² = .11] with work prevention being able

to significantly predict work safety compliance behavioural tendencies as well [t = 3.35, p <

.001]. The third regression analysis showed an overall insignificant model [F1; 96 = .87, p =

.35, r² = .01] with work prevention being unable to significantly predict work safety

participative behavioural tendencies [t = .93, p < .35].This last finding of an insignificant relationship between work prevention focus and work safety participation might not be

surprising given the significant correlational relationships towards creativity, chronic and work promotion focus discussed earlier.

(26)

.02] with work prevention being unable to significantly predict in-role behavioural tendencies

[t = 1.51, p = .135].

To conclude, evidence was found to support Hypothesis 5 and 6, underlining the claim that a work promotion focus is positively related to creativity and a work prevention focus positively related to safety behaviours. Evidence for Hypothesis 7 could not be established. Table 4 provides an overview of the results of the regression analysis.

Table 4. Regression Analysis Summary for Work Regulatory Focus Predicting Work

Performance

Work Performance Source B SE(B) β t p

Creativity Work Promotion .58 .12 .44 4.84 .000 .2 In-role Behaviour Work Prevention .08 .05 .15 1.51 .135 .02 Safety Motivation .12 .02 .46 5.13 .000 .22 Safety Compliance .09 .03 .32 3.35 .001 .11 Safety Participation .03 .03 .09 .93 .353 .01

Hypothesis 8, 10 and 12. Hypothesis 8, 10 and 12 were tested using a mediation analysis (Model 4 of Hayes’ Template) to investigate the relationship between level of abuse and the work performance variables through the work regulatory focus. Level of abuse served as the IV, work regulatory focus as the mediator variable and the work performance variables as the DVs.

To test hypothesis 8, creativity was the DV and work promotion focus was the hypothesized mediator. The analysis showed that level of abuse [t = .31, p = .755] is insignificantly whereas work promotion focus [t = 4.83, p < .001] is significantly related to creativity and together, they constitute a significant model [F2; 95 = 11.65, p < .001, r² = .2].

(27)

Table 5 provides an overview of the results.

Table 5. Indirect Effects of Level of Abuse on Creativity as Mediated by Work Promotion

Focus Model 1 (DV = Work Promotion Focus) Model 2 (DV = Creativity) Intercept 46.89 (2.35)** 10.73 (6.32)Ϯ Level of Abuse -.54 (1.19) .44 (1.41) Work Promotion Focus .58 (.12)** R² .002 .2 Indirect Effect Coefficient SE 95% CI Work Promotion -.32 .72 [-1.76; 1.14]

Notes. N = 98. Standard Errors between parentheses. Ϯp < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01

Similar to testing hypothesis 6, Hypothesis 10 also included three separate analyses to capture the three subdimensions of work safety behaviour. For all three analyses, work prevention focus served as the hypothesized mediator. With safety motivation as the DV, the analysis showed a significant overall model [F2; 95 = 13.75, p < .001, r² = .22], with work

prevention focus being able to significantly predict safety motivation [t = 5.13, p < .001], as compared to level of abuse [t = 1.07, p = .286]. Nonetheless, the mediation effect could not be established due to the corresponding 95% confidence interval including 0 [-.29, .33].

With safety compliance as the DV, the analysis produced a significant overall model as well [F2; 95 = 5.7, p = .004, r² = .11], with work prevention focus being able to significantly predict

safety motivation [t = 3.34, p = .001], in contrast to level of abuse [t = .51, p = .614]. Nevertheless, the mediation effect could not be established due to the corresponding 95% confidence interval including 0 [-.24; .24]. In the end, with safety participation as the DV, the analysis yielded no significant overall model [F2; 95 = .94, p = .391, r² = .02], with both, level

(28)

significantly predicting in-role behaviour. Moreover, the mediation effect as well could not be established due to the corresponding 95% confidence interval including 0 [-.12; .14]. Tables 6, 7 and 8 provide an overview of the results of the three analyses, respectively.

Table 6. Indirect Effects of Level of Abuse on Safety Motivation as Mediated by Work

Prevention Focus

Model 1 (DV = Work Prevention Focus)

Model 2 (DV = Safety Motivation)

Intercept 41.3 (2.42)** 4.56 (1.11)** Level of Abuse .05 (1.23) .3 (.28) Work Prevention Focus .11 (.02)** R² .00 .22 Indirect Effect Coefficient SE 95% CI Work Prevention .01 .15 [-.29; .33]

Notes. N = 98. Standard Errors between parentheses. Ϯp < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01

Table 7. Indirect Effects of Level of Abuse on Safety Compliance as Mediated by Work

Prevention Focus

Model 1 (DV = Work Prevention Focus)

Model 2 (DV = Safety Compliance)

Intercept 41.3 (2.42)** 6.83 (1.23)** Level of Abuse .05 (1.23) .16 (.32) Work Prevention Focus .09 (.03)** R² .00 .11 Indirect Effect Coefficient SE 95% CI Work Prevention .01 .12 [-.24; .24]

(29)

Table 8. Indirect Effects of Level of Abuse on Safety Participation as Mediated by Work

Prevention Focus

Model 1 (DV = Work Prevention Focus)

Model 2 (DV = Safety Participation)

Intercept 41.3 (2.42)** 6.13 (1.62)** Level of Abuse .05 (1.23) .42 (.41) Work Prevention Focus .03 (.03) R² .00 .02 Indirect Effect Coefficient SE 95% CI Work Prevention .01 .06 [-.11; .14]

Notes. N = 98. Standard Errors between parentheses. Ϯp < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01

Lastly, to test hypothesis 12, in-role behaviour was the DV and work prevention focus was the hypothesized mediator. The analysis yielded no significant overall model [F2; 95 = 1.73, p = .183, r² = .04], with both, level of abuse [t = -1.09; p = .281] and work prevention

focus [t = 1.51; p = .133], not being able to significantly predicting in-role behaviour.

(30)

Table 9. Indirect Effects of Level of Abuse on In-Role Behaviour as Mediated by Work

Prevention Focus

Model 1 (DV = Work Prevention Focus)

Model 2 (DV = In-Role Behaviour)

Intercept 41.3 (2.42)** 24.5 (2.53)** Level of Abuse .05 (1.23) -.69 (.64) Work Prevention Focus .08 (.05) R² .00 .04 Indirect Effect Coefficient SE 95% CI Work Prevention .01 .13 [-.29; .26]

Notes. N = 98. Standard Errors between parentheses. Ϯp < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01

To conclude, the analyses could not establish mediation effects, thereby failing to support Hypotheses 8, 10 and 12. This means that the proposed positive and negative indirect

relationships between abusive supervision and the three outcome variables are not existent in the underlying study.1

Hypothesis 9, 11 and 13. Finally, hypothesis 9, 11 and 13 tested the full moderation-mediated model to wrap up the statistical analyses. In addition to the preceding analysis, chronic regulatory focus was added as a moderator variable between level of abuse and work regulatory focus. Level of abuse was always the IV. This setup fitted perfectly to model 7 of Hayes’ template. For hypothesis 9, chronic promotion focus served as the moderator, work

1 Given that the manipulation check conducted earlier yielded in significant differences in the perception of abusive

(31)

promotion focus as the mediator and creativity as the DV. The analysis found that there is no significant conditionally indirect effect of abusive supervision on creativity through work promotion for low [Coefficient = -.61, SE = 1.06, 95% CI (-2.72; 1.53)] or high [Coefficient = .98, SE = .91, 95% CI (-2.82; .92)] values of chronic promotion focus. Table 10 gives an overview of the analysis.

Table 10. Conditional Indirect Effect of Abusive Supervision on Creativity through Work

Promotion Focus

Conditional Indirect Effect

Coefficient SE 95% CI

-1 SD (Chronic Promotion Focus) -.61 1.06 [-2.72; 1.53]

+1 SD (Chronic Promotion Focus) .98 .91 [-2.82; .92]

R² .19

Notes. N = 98. Ϯp < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01

For hypothesis 11, chronic prevention focus serves as the moderator, work prevention focus as the mediator and the three subdimensions of work safety behaviour as the DV. With

safety motivation as the DV, the analysis showed that there is no significant conditionally

(32)

Table 11. Conditional Indirect Effect of Abusive Supervision on Safety Motivation through

Work Prevention Focus

Conditional Indirect Effect

Coefficient SE 95% CI

-1 SD (Chronic Promotion Focus) -.07 1.06 [-.46; .39]

+1 SD (Chronic Promotion Focus) -.04 .91 [-.33; .25]

R² .22

Notes. N = 98. Ϯp < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01

Table 12. Conditional Indirect Effect of Abusive Supervision on Safety Compliance through

Work Prevention Focus

Conditional Indirect Effect

Coefficient SE 95% CI

-1 SD (Chronic Promotion Focus) -.06 .16 [-.39; .27]

+1 SD (Chronic Promotion Focus) -.03 .11 [-.26; .19]

R² .11

Notes. N = 98. Ϯp < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01

Table 13. Conditional Indirect Effect of Abusive Supervision on Safety Participation through

Work Prevention Focus

Conditional Indirect Effect

Coefficient SE 95% CI

-1 SD (Chronic Promotion Focus) -.02 .09 [-.19; .2]

+1 SD (Chronic Promotion Focus) -.01 .06 [-.16; .09]

R² .02

Notes. N = 98. Ϯp < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01

(33)

= -.03, SE = .12, 95% CI (-.31; .19)] values of chronic promotion focus. Table 14 presents an overview of the corresponding analysis.

Table 14. Conditional Indirect Effect of Abusive Supervision on In-Role Behaviour through

Work Prevention Focus

Conditional Indirect Effect

Coefficient SE 95% CI

-1 SD (Chronic Promotion Focus) -.05 .18 [-.45; .31]

+1 SD (Chronic Promotion Focus) -.03 .12 [-.31; .19]

R² .04

Notes. N = 98. Ϯp < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01

To sum up the final analysis, no moderated mediation relationship could be established for all three hypotheses. This means that the proposed indirect relationships between abusive supervision and the three work performance variables are not captured and cannot be explained with the regulatory focus framework in the present study.2

Discussion

The underlying study was among the first to address some gaps in the abusive supervision research literature with the aim to arrive at a more balanced view of the performance consequences of abusive supervision. The concept of regulatory focus (RF) theory was thereby used as the theoretical framework. Abusive supervision was illustrated by means of a scenario experiment, in which it was manipulated into three levels. Given its threatening and destructive nature, it was assumed that abusive supervision has different effects on an individual’s regulatory focus, with a negative relation towards work promotion and a positive relation towards work prevention focus. In the end, the indirect effects of

2 Again, the same analysis was re-run with perceived abusive supervision as the IV (based on the 8-item scale by Tepper

(34)

abusive supervision on three work performance outcome variables (creativity, safety behaviour, in-role behaviour) as mediated by work RF and moderated by chronic RF, were assessed. Firstly, results showed that different levels of displayed supervisory abuse were not able to influence work regulatory focus. By the same token, there were also no main effects of abusive supervision on the work performance variables. In addition, the relationship between level of abuse and work regulatory focus could not be reinforced by a corresponding chronic regulatory focus, that is, for instance the proposed negative relation between abusive

supervision and work promotion focus is not more pronounced for individuals high (rather than low) in chronic promotion focus. Secondly, however, it was shown that a work promotion focus is positively related to creativity. Similarly, work prevention focus is positively related to safety motivation and safety compliance. A positive relation between work prevention focus and in-role behaviour could not be established. Thirdly, the positive and negative indirect relationships between abusive supervision and the work performance variables through work regulatory focus could not be supported either. Finally, the proposed more pronounced indirect relationship through a corresponding chronic regulatory focus could not be shown as well. In conclusion, abusive supervision, as manipulated in the scenario experiment, did not influence work regulatory focus. Because of that, RF was not able to present a more balanced view of the consequences of abusive supervision on work performance variables in the underlying study.

Theoretical and Practical Implications

(35)

work promotion focus. This makes sense, given that the concept of work regulatory focus, as conceptualized by Neubert and colleagues (2008), is based on the same latent components brought forward in the original definition of RF by Higgin’s (1997). That is, work promotion focus is based on the motivation of achievement, ideals and gains in relation to the work context, whereas work prevention focus incorporates security, losses and oughts in relation to the work context (Neubert et al., 2008). Despite these similarities, the researcher demonstrated the uniqueness of the concept in explaining variances in several work-related outcome

(36)

Based on the direct of effect of chronic regulatory focus on work regulatory focus and the latter finding that a certain work regulatory foci relates to improved work performance, the idea of regulatory fit is emphasized (Johnson et al., 2015). This theory suggests that an alignment of the situational frame with the regulatory focus of a person enhances effort and motivation in goal pursuit. Therefore, for instance, if in an organization, safety behaviour is essential, the management team might be well-advised to screen for employees who are more prevention-oriented and create an incentive system that promotes a prevention focus. On the contrary, if innovation or creativity is necessary for a firm, it seems sensible to employ more promotion-oriented people who better align to an organizational climate, which for example promotes risk-taking to develop creative ideas (Lockwood et al., 2002; Shah, Higgins & Friedman, 1998).

Limitations and Future Research

(37)

as a dynamic, shared process embedded in complex social systems” (p. 402). Additionally, the job of a waiter as it is described in the scenario might not be too appealing to the participants. Based on the general high educational level among the participants, it seems unlikely for them to be employed as a waiter, reducing the relevance and realism of the scenario. The more realistic the scenario is perceived, the greater the effect is on the reader (Dorado, Chaya, Tarrega, & Hort, 2016). A higher-level, more ambitious job attached to the main character in the scenario might have been more appropriate. Thus, I suggest that future studies either adopt an alternative approach, like the more common field survey method (Tepper et al., 2017), or refine the scenarios, maybe even use video vignettes to increase the perceived realism for participants (Brees, Martinko, & Harvey, 2016).

Secondly, the three work performance variables were only captured as measures of behavioural tendency, instead of actual behaviour, since participants were asked to imagine how they would behave two weeks after the incident with the supervisor. It is widely

acknowledged that people differ in what they say they do and what they actually do, which is also called the implementation-intention gap (c.f. Fennis, Adriaanse, Stroebe, & Pol, 2011). Therefore, future studies might be well-advised to not only rely on self-reports of intended work behaviours but also include other-ratings of actual work behaviours by supervisors or peers, as a literature review by Fleenor and colleagues (2010) has shown that it increases accuracy (Fleenor, Smither, Atwater, Braddy, & Sturm, 2010). Alternatively, researchers could ask participants to do a follow-up task after being confronted with supervisory abuse, where participants for instance can demonstrate creativity. An example might be the study by Friedman and Förster (2001), who asked participants, after cueing them with either a

(38)

Thirdly, a convenience sample was used consisting of participants collected via the social and professional network of the researcher. This resulted in a sample of which half the

participants were undergraduates with presumably little practical experience in organizations and (abusive) supervisors. Future studies should consider this and provide a more useful sample of more experienced workers, since they might have been more likely to recognize the scenario as it was depicted in the present study (Yukl, 2012).

Finally, the underlying manipulation of abusive supervision did not yield significant effects on regulatory focus. Nevertheless, regulatory focus has expected effects on the

behavioural outcome variables measured in the present study. Therefore, I would suggest using other methods to examine the effects of abusive supervision on regulatory focus. At least from a theoretical point of view, which I presented earlier, there is good reason to believe that abusive supervision and regulatory focus are significantly related. In addition to that, other mechanisms need to be taken into account. In their meta-analytic review of the field, Tepper and colleagues (2017) proposed a model that is supposed to capture both a performance enhancing as well as an undermining pathway from abusive supervision to performance. For instance, they suggest that the “desire to prove the supervisor wrong” (Tepper et al., 2017, p. 135) might motivate employees to increase their performance whereas a depletion of resources as a consequence of abusive supervision undermines performance. Future research is required to investigate these proposed mechanisms to clarify if there are any upsides to supervisory abuse to ultimately arrive at a complete picture of abusive supervision.

Conclusion

(39)
(40)

References

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity and innovation in organizations (Vol. 5). Boston: Harvard Business School.

Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., & Kramer, S. J. (2004). Leader behaviors and the work environment for creativity: Perceived leader support. The Leadership Quarterly,

15(1), 5–32. https://doi-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.12.003

Ames, D. R., & Flynn, F. J. (2007). What breaks a leader: The curvilinear relation between assertiveness and leadership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 307–324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.307

Baer, M. (2012). Putting creativity to work: The implementation of creative ideas in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 55(5), 1102–1119. https://doi-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/10.5465/amj.2009.0470

Baer, M., Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (2003). Rewarding creativity: When does it really matter? The Leadership Quarterly, 14(4–5), 569–586.

https://doi-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00052-3

Becker, T. E., & Kernan, M. C. (2003). Matching commitment to supervisors and organizations to in-role and extra-role performance. Human Performance, 16(4), 327- 348. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327043HUP1604_1

Beus, J. M., & Taylor, W. D. (2018). Working safely at some times and unsafely at

others: A typology and within-person process model of safety-related work behaviors.

Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 23(3), 402–416.

https://doi-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/10.1037/ocp0000092

Brees, J., Martinko, M., Harvey, P. (2016). Abusive supervision: subordinate personality or supervisor behavior? J. Manag. Psychol. 31, 405–19.

(41)

Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel

Selection in organizations (pp. 71–98). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Burton, J. P., & Hoobler, J. M. (2006). Subordinate Self-esteem and Abusive Supervision.

Journal of Managerial Issues, 18(3), 340–355.

Camacho, C. J., Higgins, E. T., & Luger, L. (2003). Moral value transfer from regulatory fit: What feels right is right and what feels wrong is wrong. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 84(3), 498–510.

https://doi-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.498

Copyright © [2018] Qualtrics. Qualtrics and all other Qualtrics product or

service names are registered trademarks or trademarks of Qualtrics, Provo, UT, USA. https://www.qualtrics.com

Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 69(2), 117–132. https://doi-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/10.1006/obhd.1996.2675

Dorado, R., Chaya, C., Tarrega, A., & Hort, J. (2016). The impact of using a written scenario when measuring emotional response to beer. Food Quality and Preference, 50, 38–47. https://doi-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.01.004

Elliot, A., and Church, M. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance

achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 218–232. Fennis, B. M., Adriaanse, M. A., Stroebe, W., & Pol, B. (2011). Bridging the intention–

behavior gap: Inducing implementation intentions through persuasive appeals. Journal of

Consumer Psychology, 21(3), 302–311.

(42)

Fleenor, J. W., Smither, J. W., Atwater, L. E., Braddy, P. W., & Sturm, R. E. (2010). Self– other rating agreement in leadership: A review. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(6), 1005– 1034. https://doi-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.006

Förster, J., Friedman, R. S., & Liberman, N. (2004). Temporal Construal Effects on Abstract and Concrete Thinking: Consequences for Insight and Creative Cognition. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), 177–189.

https://doi-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.177

Friedman, R., & Forster, J. (2001). The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 1001-13.

Gorman, C. A., Meriac, J. P., Overstreet, B. L., Apodaca, S., McIntyre, A. L., Park, P., & Godbey, J. N. (2012). A meta-analysis of the regulatory focus nomological network: Work-related antecedents and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(1), 160-172. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2011.07.005

Greenberg,J. & Eskew, D. E. (1993). The Role of Role Playing in Organizational Research.

Journal of Management, 19, 221-241.

Greenslade, J. H., & Jimmieson, N. L. (2007). Distinguishing between task and contextual performance for nurses: Development of a job performance scale. Journal of Advanced

Nursing, 58(6), 602–611.

https://doi-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04256.x

Han, G. H., Harms, P. D., & Bai, Y. (2017). Nightmare bosses: The impact of abusive supervision on employees’ sleep, emotions, and creativity. Journal of Business

Ethics, 145(1), 21–31. https://doi-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/10.1007/s10551-015-2859-y

(43)

Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable

mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf

Henker, N., Sonnentag, S., & Unger, D. (2015). Transformational leadership and employee creativity: The mediating role of promotion focus and creative process engagement.

Journal of Business and Psychology, 30, 235–247. DOI:10.1007/s10869-014-9348-7

Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280-1300. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280

Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and Prevention: Regulatory Focus as a Motivational Principle. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 1-46. Doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60381-0

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

Personality and Social Psychology, 66(2), 276–286.

https://doi-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/10.1037/0022-3514.66.2.276

IBM Corp. Released 2013. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 22.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.

Johnson, P. D., Smith, M. B., Wallace, J. C., Hill, A. D., & Baron, R. A. (2015). A review of multilevel regulatory focus in organizations. Journal of Management, 41(5), 1501-1529. Kark, R., & van Dijk, D. (2007). Motivation to lead, motivation to follow: The role of the

self-regulatory focus in leadership processes. The Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 500–528. https://doi-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/10.2307/20159313

Kijkuit, B., & van den Ende, J. (2007). The organizational life of an idea: Integrating social network, creativity and decision-making perspectives. Journal of Management Studies,

(44)

Lanaj, K., Chang, C., & Johnson, R. E. (2012). Regulatory focus and work-related outcomes: A review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(5), 998-1034.

doi:10.1037/a0027723

Lee, A., & Aaker, J. (2004). Bringing the frame into focus: The influence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 205-208.

Lee, S., Yun, S., & Srivastava, A. (2013). Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between abusive supervision and creativity in South Korea. Leadership Quarterly, 24(5), 724–731. 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.

Mackey, J.D., Frieder, R.E., Brees, J.R., Martinko, M.J. (2015). Abusive supervision: a meta-analysis and empirical review. J. Management, 2015:0149206315573997.

Myer, J., Becker, T., & Vandenberghe, C. (2004). Employee commitment and motivation: A conceptual analysis and integrative model. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 991-1007.

Neal, A. & Griffin, M. A. (2006). A study of the lagged relationships among safety climate, safety motivation, safety behavior, and accidents at the individual and group levels.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 946-953. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.946.

Neubert, M. J., Kacmar, K. M., Carlson, D. S., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A. (2008). Regulatory focus as a mediator of the influence of initiating structure and servant leadership on employee behaviour. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1220-1233. Pierce, J. R., & Aguinis, H. (2013). The too-much-of-a-good-thing effect in management.

(45)

Pearce, C., & Sims, H. (2002). Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6(2), 172-197. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.6.2.172

Scholer, A. A., & Higgins, E. T. (2008). Distinguishing levels of approach and avoidance: An analysis using regulatory focus theory. In A. J. Elliot, A. J. Elliot (Eds.) , Handbook of

approach and avoidance motivation (pp. 489-503). New York, NY, US: Psychology

Press.

Shah, J., Higgins, T., & Friedman, R. S. (1998). Performance incentives and means: How regulatory focus influences goal attainment. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 74(2), 285–293. https://doi-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/10.1037/0022-3514.74.2.285

Tepper, B.J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academic Management Journal, 43, 178–90.

Tepper, B. J., Simon, L., & Park, H. M. (2017). Abusive supervision. Annual Review of

Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 123–152.

Tung, F.C., & Yu, T.W. (2016). Does innovation leadership enhance creativity in high-tech industries? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 37, 579 – 592. DOI:10.1108/LODJ-09-2014-0170

Urf, S. (2013). Abusive Supervision. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. doi:10.1007/978-3-658-03424-5_4

Vergauwe, J., Wille, B., Hofmans, J., Kaiser, R.B., & De Fruyt, F. (2018). The double-edged sword of leader charisma: Understanding the curvilinear relationship between charismatic personality and leader effectiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114, 110–130.

(46)

Wallace, C., & Chen, G. (2006). A multilevel integration of personality, climate, self-regulation, and performance. Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 529–557. https://doi-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00046.x

Wallace, J. C., Little, L. M., & Shull, A. (2008). The moderating effects of task complexity on the relationship between regulatory foci and safety and production performance. Journal

of Occupational Health Psychology, 13(2), 95–104.

https://doi-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/10.1037/1076-8998.13.2.95

Williams, L.J., & Anderson, S.E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviours. Journal of

Management,17, 601-617.

Wiseman, D. B. & Levin, I. P. (1996). Comparing Risky Decision Making Under Conditions of Real and Hypothetical Consequences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 66, 241-250.

Wu, C., McMullen, J. S., Neubert, M. J., & Yi, X. (2008). The influence of leader regulatory focus on employee creativity. Journal of Business Venturing, 23, 587–602.

DOI:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2007.09.005

Yukl, G. (2012). Leadership in organizations (Eighth, global ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Zhang, Y., & Liao, Z. (2015). Consequences of abusive supervision: A meta-analytic review.

Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 32(4), 959–987.

Zhang, J., & Liu, J. (2018). Is abusive supervision an absolute devil? Literature review and research agenda. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, doi.org/10.1007/s10490-017-9551-y

(47)

Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 682–696. https://doi-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/10.2307/3069410

Zhu, Y. (2013). Individual Behaviour: In-role and Extra-role. International Journal of

(48)

Appendix A

Scales for Independent and Dependent Variables

Chronic Regulatory Focus (Lockwood, Jordan, & Kunda, 2002)

1. In general, I am focused on preventing negative events in my life. 2. I am anxious that I will fall short of my responsibilities and obligations. 3. I frequently imagine how I will achieve my hopes and aspirations. 4. I often think about the person I am afraid I might become in the future. 5. I often think about the person I would ideally like to be in the future. 6. I typically focus on the success I hope to achieve in the future. 7. I often worry that I will fail to accomplish my professional goals. 8. I often think about how I will achieve professional success.

9. I often imagine myself experiencing bad things that I fear might happen to me. 10. I frequently think about how I can prevent failures in my life.

11. I am more oriented toward preventing losses than I am toward achieving gains. 12. My major goal at work right now is to achieve my professional ambitions. 13. My major goal at work right now is to avoid becoming professional failure.

14. I see myself as someone who is primarily striving to reach my "ideal self" - to fulfil my hopes, wishes and aspirations.

15. I see myself as someone who is primarily striving to become the self I "ought" to be - to fulfil my duties, responsibilities and obligations.

16. In general, I am focused on achieving positive outcomes in my life.

17. I often imagine myself experiencing good things that I will hope happen to me. 18. Overall, I am more oriented toward achieving success than failure.

Work Regulatory Focus (Neubert, Kacmar, Carlson, Chonko, & Roberts, 2008)

1. I concentrate on completing my work tasks correctly to increase my job security. 2. At work, I focus my attention on completing my assigned responsibilities. 3. Fulfilling my work duties is very important to me.

4. At work, I strive to live up to the responsibilities and duties given to me by others. 5. At work, I am often focussed on accomplishing tasks that will support my need for

security.

6. I do everything I can to avoid loss at work.

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

Provided they believe that social change is important, individuals under promotion focus should be motivated to engage in collective action by the perception that achievement

The chosen research method will involve testing of the interaction between chronic regulatory focus measured by regulatory focus questionnaire, and momentary regulatory focus

That is, the relationship between employee regulatory strategies and problem recognition, such that employee chronic regulatory focus (i.e., chronic promotion vs. chronic

Hypothesis 3: The positive relationship between leader chronic promotion focus and promotion focused leadership will be stronger when employee promotive voice is high, rather

Hence, it was confirmed that mechanistic organizations lead to abusive supervision followed by lower levels of job satisfaction, whereas organic organizations

Hypothesis 5b: Perceived supervisory narcissism moderates the relationship between abusive supervision and negative gossiping behaviour about the supervisor, which is mediated

In this paper we proposed that abusive supervision positively influences turnover intentions, that this relationship is partially mediated by distrust, while internal locus

The rather scarce previous research examining the relationship between regulatory focus and subordinate creativity has shown that a promotion focus leads to a higher level