THE INFLUENCE OF THE SUPERVISOR-SUBORDINATE REGULATORY FIT ON PRO-SUPERVISOR UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR
Master Thesis, MSc Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
THE DARK SIDE OF LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE:
THE INFLUENCE OF THE SUPERVISOR-SUBORDINATE REGULATORY FIT ON PRO-SUPERVISOR UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
Unethical behavior in the workplace has been of interest in the field of academic research, as it occurs frequently and can be harmful to the organization (Greenberg, 2002). Most academic researchers assume that unethical behavior is by definition harmful to the company and its leaders and out of the self-interest of the employee. For example, Liu, Lin, and Hu (2013) argued and showed that some employees would intentionally behave unethically as revenge due to feelings of unfair treatment. However, recently there has been a shift in the research on unethical behavior, which focuses on social interest motives rather than selfishness. For example, a situation where unethical behavior by the employee would be in favor of the effective functioning of the organization or the leader and not as a result of the self-interest of the employee.
One motive for unethical behavior out of social interest might be to reciprocate the investment of the leader in the subordinate. The leader-member exchange (LMX) theory explains the relationship between a supervisor and its subordinate. A high level of LMX will be characterized by a high investment of the supervisor in the subordinate and vice versa (Grean, 1976). Therefore, unethical acts by the employee may have the intention to promote the effective functioning of the supervisor, as a result of the employee’s identification and commitment to the supervisor. Hence, the employee tries to return the social exchange through pro-supervisor unethical behavior (PSUB).
Using theory on regulatory focus (Higgins, 1997), regulatory fit (Higgins, 2000), LMX (Graen, 1976), and social exchange (Blau, 1964), I argue that a regulatory fit between a supervisor and a subordinate increases a subordinate’s perception of LMX, sequentially motivating them to engage in pro-supervisor unethical behaviors (see Figure 1 for the proposed model). I assess these expectations by means of an experimental scenario study. This research contributes to the body of work examining unethical behavior in an organization and extends the literature available about the consequences of LMX. As it attempts to provide evidence for the argument that not all unethical behavior is a reflection of the self-interest of the employee or having the purpose to harm the organization. Rather, it can also reflect the positive exchange relationship of the supervisor with an employee, who is willing to protect or promote the effective functioning of the supervisor by committing unethical acts without any self-interest. The outcome of the research may enhance the knowledge about unethical behavior in organizations, how organizations may recognize it, and how to prevent it.
THEORY SECTION
Figure 1: Conceptual Model
Regulatory Focus
The regulatory focus theory, established by Higgins (1997, 1998), explains the differences in how people try to align their behaviors with goals or standards (Brockner & Higgins, 2001). According to Higgins (1997). People possess two basic self-regulation systems: a promotion focus and a prevention focus. A promotion focus regulates the achievement of rewards and promotion goals, while a prevention focus regulates the avoidance of punishment and is more concerned with prevention goals.
Self-regulation systems. The two foci have different influences on an individual’s
perception, decision making, emotions, and subsequently, on the performance (Higgins, 1997, 1998). People who are predominantly promotion focused are more concerned with their “ideal self”, which includes their hopes, wishes, accomplishments and aspirations. These individuals are
more likely to be sensitive to rewards systems, are more creative problem solvers, and are more willing to take risks (Brockner & Higgins, 2001). In contrast, prevention focused individuals are more concerned with the “ought self”, which includes duties, obligations, and responsibilities. They are more likely to be sensitive to punishments, and therefore have a more avoidant nature.
The basic motivation of the two foci are significantly different. The underlying motivation for promotion focused people is to enhance development and change and is called, eagerness. Whereas the motivation for prevention is to maintain stability, safety, security and to preserve the status quo and is referred to as vigilance. The two motivations are conflicting with each other, since both demand opposite things, such as stability versus change. However both are important for the survival of the human being (Levontin, Fluger, & Van Dijk, 2004).
However, it is important to keep in mind that regulatory focus is determined by both chronic factors, as well as situational factors (Higgins, 1997, 1998). Several studies have demonstrated that the regulatory focus is a chronic as well as a situational personality variable, which can be evoked intentionally (e.g., Liberman et al., 1999; Friedman and Förster, 2001).
Leader regulatory focus. As everyone else, leaders have certain values too. A leader who
The employees derive their strategy from the perceived goals and work context the leader provides. Therefore, subordinates will try to be more attentive to positive outcomes, innovation, and change when the leader is promotion focused, while they will try to be attentive to negative outcomes, quality, efficiency, and stability with a prevention focused leader. And so, the behaviors of the followers will be substantially different as well. Creativity, eagerness, speed, and risk taking will be considered positive in an environment led by a promotion focused leader, whereas repetitiveness, vigilance, accuracy and risk aversion are more valued in a prevention environment. (Kark & van Dijk, 2007). So, the regulatory focus of a leader has distinguishable consequences as it highlights different sorts of behavior and strategies of the subordinates.
Interpersonal regulatory fit. Regulatory fit is experienced when a person has to perform a
task or pursue a goal in a manner that sustains (fit) rather than disrupts (misfit) their chronic regulatory focus (Higgins, 2000). Recent research has shown that a regulatory fit can also be derived from interpersonal influences. Righetti, Finkenauer, and Rusbult (2011) suggested that “individuals experience interpersonal regulatory fit when they perceive an interaction partner to approach goal pursuit activities with a regulatory orientation that matches the individual’s own regulatory orientation.”1 As mentioned earlier, the supervisor provides goals and a work context
congruent with the supervisor’s regulatory focus. When these goals are in alignment with the subordinate’s regulatory focus, a high interpersonal regulatory fit will be experienced.
Effects of interpersonal regulatory fit. The alignment of the demands of the task provided
by the supervisor and the regulatory focus of the individual increases the positive feelings regarding the activity, and subsequently increases the engagement in the activity (Higgins, 2005). Therefore, a person with a promotion focus will be more engaged and experience greater value when the
context of the task demands an eager and opportunistic striving attitude in which improvements, learning and progress are demanded. This context can be attributed to the interpersonal fit, which provides goals support, which is derived from a leader with the same regulatory orientation (Righetti, et al., 2011). On the other hand, an individual with a prevention focus will be more engaged and perceive greater value from an activity where performance, minimization of errors, and responsible behavior are of importance due to the interpersonal fit with the leader (Sue-Chan, Wood, & Latham, 2012).
Next to greater engagement and value associated with the task, interpersonal regulatory fit is also often associated with persistence and better performance (Higgins, 2006). The increase in performance can be attributed to an increase in people’s motivation, which is the result of a strong interpersonal regulatory fit (Higgins, 2000; Righetti, et al., 2011). Particularly, tasks where engagement, attention, and persistence are necessary, and outcomes such as acquiring a skill (promotion focused), processing new information (promotion focused), or complying with regulations and advice (prevention focused) are expected from the subordinate by the supervisor (Freitas, Liberman, & Higgins, 2002; Hong & Lee, 2008; Lee & Aaker, 2004).
Furthermore, the interpersonal regulatory fit can influence the behavior of the employee. When both are highly promotion-focused, the likelihood of creative behavior increases, as this is valued by both parties in the relationship and is demanded in the job context. Therefore, people start thinking outside their formal job description. In contrast, when there is a prevention-focused fit, lower creativity can be expected from the employee (Wu, McMullen, Neubert, & Yi, 2008).
positive when regulatory fit was high and more negative when it was not (Higgins, 2000). Therefore, employees may feel less negative about a certain behavior, which is not socially acceptable when fit with the supervisor is high. Camacho, Higgins, and Luger (2003) reported that there can be a transfer of feeling rightness from regulatory fit to evaluations of rightness. They demonstrated that interpersonal regulatory fit can influence a moral evaluation of a goal as being more right if the goal is set and conducted in a manner that fits the individual’s regulatory focus.
On the whole, it seems that the supervisor-subordinate interpersonal regulatory fit has many positive consequences, such as the likely enhanced relationship between the leader and the employee.
Leader-Member Exchange
subordinates. Therefore, these employees comply with their formally defined job requirements and only follow legitimate supervisor requests (Graen & Cashman, 1975).
Factors influencing LMX. Currently, several factors influencing the LMX relationship
have been identified, which include effective communication (Fairhurst, Rogers, & Sarr, 1987), subordinate ingratiation (Deluga & Perry, 1994), performance (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975), and supervisor’s liking of the subordinate (Wayne & Ferris, 1990). However, research has identified similarity between the leader and the subordinate as the main contributing factor to the LMX relationship. Similarity can be divided into several categories such as demographics, shared attitudes, and personality traits. Regarding demographic similarity such as gender, researchers reported mix results. Nevertheless, several studies have provided evidence for a positive relation between LMX and supervisor-subordinate agreement on attitudinal similarity (Phillips & Bedeian, 1994), job-related matters (Graen & Schiemann, 1978), positive affectivity similarity (Bauer & Green, 1996) and work values (Anderson & Green, 1993; Steiner & Dobbins, 1989). These studies provided substantial evidence that shared goals, attitude and values provide higher interpersonal attraction, higher levels of trust and confidence, and favorable performance ratings. In contrast, when the leader and the subordinate did not share these similarities, a substantially lower level of LMX was reported.
Relating interpersonal regulatory fit to LMX. As discussed earlier, interpersonal
shown to increase when the performance of a subordinate is high. Therefore, another connection between regulatory fit and LMX is visible here (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Higgins, 2006). Lastly, when both parties share the same work values, such as striving for progress rather than security, the interpersonal regulatory fit becomes stronger. These work values are also important indicators for the amount of LMX. Therefore, it can be argued that a high regulatory fit leads to a high LMX, since both have similar grounds for the relationship (Anderson & Green, 1993; Steiner & Dobbins, 1989). For example, if the supervisor and the subordinate both have a high promotion focus a high regulatory fit is established. The regulatory fit suggests that they hold similar attitudes, work values, and goals, which lead to a high level of LMX. Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 1a: A leader’s promotion focus will lead to more leader-member exchange than a leader’s prevention focus when the subordinate’s regulatory focus is predominantly promotion focused.
Hypothesis 1b: A leader’s prevention focus will lead to more leader-member exchange than a leader’s promotion focus when the subordinate’s regulatory focus is predominantly prevention focused.
Effects of LMX. Numerous effects have been attributed to a higher quality LMX. For
(Deluga & Perry, 1994). Moreover, the supervisor will have committed, competent, and conscientious subordinates (Dansereau et al., 1975; Liden & Graen, 1980; Yukl, 1994) who will act in a consistent manner with the expectations of the supervisor (Graen & Cashman, 1975).
Lastly, due to the higher quality LMX, subordinates may portray organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB). Deluga (1998) defined OCB as “spontaneous acts that go beyond prescribed job requirements (in-role behaviors), whereby the subordinate performs nonobligatory extra-role behaviors.” Furthermore, the subordinate does not expect an explicit organizational reward or recognition in return (Organ, 1988). So, the subordinate engages in behavior which is favorable for the leader and non-obligatory, due to a high level of LMX.
Pro-Supervisor Unethical Behavior
Motowidlo, 1986). Therefore, it is not considered UPB when the employees conduct unethical behaviors to only benefit themselves (Umphress & Bingham, 2011). Examples of UPB are protecting the organization by lying to customers or clients, failing to pay refunds to customers and clients, selling an unsafe product, changing expiration dates to sell a consumable product, or not informing customers concerning flaws of a product.
As mentioned before, there is no definition yet available for pro-supervisor unethical behavior. Therefore, there will be one provided here drawn from information provided above concerning UPB. In this thesis PSUB is defined as actions violating societal values, morals or laws conducted by a subordinate outside the formal job description to support the effectiveness of a supervisor, which are not intended to directly benefit the subordinate itself. However, what causes these acts needs to be considered as well. Again, there is only research available in the field of UPB and therefore will be used here. Two factors have been identified to enhance UPB, which are organizational identification and the earlier discussed logic of social exchange (Umphress & Bingham, 2011), which can both be applied to PSUB.
Factors influencing PSUB. Drawing from previous research on unethical behaviors, we
might place the interest of the in-group above anyone who could be harmed due to unethical behavior. Or employees may perceive unethical pro-organizational behavior as their duty to serve and protect the organization (Ashforth & Anand, 2003). As was shown earlier, employees may also identify with a leader who has similar norms and values. The same reasoning can therefore be applied on PSUB. It is thought here that the organization can be too abstract to identify with in comparison with a leader, as the leader stands closer to the employee. Therefore, it may be more logical to attribute unethical acts to the identification with the supervisor. The employee may place the interest of the leader above others in order to serve and protect the leader due to the perceived similarity and identification.
The second and most important factor for this research, the theory of social exchange, suggests that employees perform organizational duties to both fulfill employment obligations as well as to reciprocate treatment from the leader. Previous research has shown that when the social exchange relationship is high, employees are less likely to carry out unethical acts when these may be harmful for the organization, such as stealing (Greenberg, 1993; Hollinger, 1986). However, these researches did not provide any evidence for unethical behavior in favor of the organization. Consequently, Umphress and Bingham (2011) suggested that employees may perceive UPB as a way to reciprocate positive social exchange relationships and to protect the organization. The relationship with the leader may be of high importance to the employee, and in the view of the employee needs to be sustained at every costs. PSUB could be a result of this willingness to sustain the relationship between the supervisor and the subordinate.
Relationship of LMX to PSUB. Consistent with the argument regarding social exchange
and the commitment of the subordinate to the supervisor. The higher commitment may result in socially unaccepted behaviors from the employee that are in favor of the supervisor or protecting the supervisor. The employee in this case puts the leader before other people who might suffer from the PSUB. Moreover, he or she could feel pressured into committing unethical acts in return for the investment of the leader in the employee, such as better career development support, to sustain the good relationship. In other words, when the supervisor treats the subordinate well due to high LMX, the subordinate may want to reciprocate through PSUB.
Furthermore, it was mentioned before that employees may feel less negative about a certain behavior, which is not socially acceptable when fit, and therefore LMX, with the supervisor is high (Camacho, Higgins, & Luger, 2003). As there can be a transfer of feeling rightness from regulatory fit to evaluations of rightness. Therefore, the moral evaluation of an unethical behavior can be viewed by the subordinate as being more right if the social exchange between the supervisor and the subordinate is high.
Lastly, LMX increases the occurrence of OCB. A form of OCB might be PSUB, since these are spontaneous acts that go beyond the formal job description of the employee and a form of reciprocation of the relationship between the leader and the employee.
All in all, PSUB can be viewed as a form of reciprocation of a high LMX relationship. Therefore, the second hypothesis proceeds as follows:
Hypothesis 2: Leader-member exchange is positively related to pro-supervisor unethical behaviors.
The mediating effect of LMX. As was discussed above, the first factor mentioned
the regulatory fit of the subordinate and the supervisor are similar, LMX will increase as well. Ultimately, the subordinate feels the need to reciprocate LMX through PSUB. In other words, the identification and the similarity of the two parties will increase the fit, which will result in a higher level of LMX, and therefore the likelihood of PSUB in order to reciprocate the relationship and protect the leader.
In addition, assuming that the interpersonal regulatory fit influences LMX, evidence has shown that employees feel more right about certain conduct when regulatory fit is high (Camacho et al, 2003). Therefore, it may be that employees perceive PSUB as less wrong than other unethical acts, due to the perception of rightness resulting from interpersonal regulatory fit.
Taking these two arguments into consideration results in the following two hypotheses:
Hypothesis 3a: The mediating effect of LMX between a subordinate’s promotion focus and pro-supervisor unethical behaviors will be stronger when the leader’s regulatory focus is predominantly promotion rather than prevention focused.
Hypothesis 3b: The mediating effect of LMX between a subordinate’s prevention focus and pro-supervisor unethical behaviors will be stronger when the leader’s regulatory focus is predominantly prevention rather than promotion focused.
METHOD Participants
the gender. Furthermore, the average age was 25 (SD = 6.46). Most of the participants were still students, with full-time employed at a second place (27 percent). Also, the vast majority of the participants had a Dutch nationality.
Procedure and Measures
As can be seen in the research model, several variables are of importance for this research. The questionnaire existed out of two different scenarios, a promotion focused leader scenario or a prevention focused leader scenario. The participants were randomly assigned to one of the two designs in the beginning of the questionnaire. Then, they were subjected to the different variables in different stages during the questionnaire.
Regulatory focus member. First, the independent variable in this research is the regulatory
focus of the participant which can be prevention or promotion focused. The extent of the prevention or promotion focus of the participant was measured at the beginning of the experiment using the existing scale of Lockwood, Jordan and Kunda (2002). Both foci scales individually consisted out of 9 items with answers rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = not at all true of me to 7 = very true of me. For example, the participants were asked the following questions to measure their promotion focus: “In general, I am focused on achieving positive outcomes,” and “I frequently imagine how I will achieve my hopes and aspirations.” And the following questions to measure their prevention focus: “In general, I am focused on preventing negative events,” and “I frequently think about how I can prevent failures.” The questions regarding the promotion focus of the participant had a Cronbach’s alpha of .84 and the questions regarding the prevention focus also had a Cronbach’s alpha of .84.
Regulatory focus leader. Next, the regulatory focus of the leader was manipulated to be
communicated the dominant regulatory focus of the fictional leader to test the first hypotheses concerning the level of LMX. The dominant characteristics of the leader were based on the traits Higgins provided in his studies concerning the regulatory focus. The prevention focused scenario went as follows with the promotion focused scenario between parentheses:
You’ve been working for your supervisor Tom for a year now and have gotten to know him. He comes across to you as a person who dislikes making mistakes (indifferent to making mistakes). He wants to meet his duties (fulfill his hopes), obligations and responsibilities (wishes and aspirations), and has a need to do what he ought to do (what he wants to do). He is always stressing the importance of working thoroughly and accurately (doesn’t stress working thoroughly and accurately), instead of creatively (but favors creativity). Tom dislikes change (likes change), dislikes things to become worse than they are now (likes things to become better than they are now), and dislikes losing things that are important for him (likes gaining things that are important to him). Tom therefore does not take a lot of risks (takes a lot of risks), so that he may reduce potential failure (increase potential successes).
Leader-member exchange. Subsequently, the mediating variable supervisor-subordinate
Pro-supervisor unethical behavior. Next, the effect of the mediator on the dependent
variable, the willingness of engaging in pro-supervisor unethical behavior, was assessed as a result of LMX. As mentioned, it is expected here that a higher LMX results in more pro-supervisor unethical behavior. Therefore, the measurement scale of Umphress, Bingham, & Mitchell (2010) was altered slightly and used here. Examples of this scale are the following: “If it would help Tom, I would misrepresent the truth to make my supervisor look good,” and “If it would help Tom, I would exaggerate the truth about my supervisor's successes to others.” The scale consisted of 6 questions with answers also ranging from 1 = fully disagree to 7 = fully agree and had a Cronbach’s alpha of .85, which was deemed appropriate.
Manipulation check. Several questions were provided at the end of the questionnaire to
check whether the manipulation had been successful. The question concerning the prevention focus of the leader maintained a Cronbach’s alpha of .82 and went as follows and the answers were ranging from 1 = fully disagree to 7 = fully agree:
My supervisor Tom is focused on preventing failure.
My supervisor Tom likes stability and therefore changes make him anxious. My supervisor Tom dislikes risky choices.
The questions concerning the promotion focus of the leader had a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.93 and consisted of the next questions:
My supervisor Tom is focused on potential successes.
My supervisor Tom enjoys changes and therefore likes creativity. My supervisor Tom likes taking a lot of risks.
Data Analysis
The acquired data was entered in and tested with SPSS to be able to find statistical evidence for the relationships. First, the Cronbach’s alpha reported earlier should range from 0 to 1 with a lower limit of .70 to determine acceptability of the internal consistency of the variables. As have been shown above, all scales of the questionnaire have a higher Cronbach’s alpha than the lower limit of .70. Therefore, it can be said that the survey’s measurement scales are reliable and consistent.
Next, univariate ANOVA tests were applied to the manipulation checks to see whether there was a significant difference between the two provided scenarios. A significance level of 0.05 was maintained in all analyses in order to report a difference. Next, a regression analysis was used to measure the dependency of the LMX relationship on the interaction between the regulatory focus of the participant and the manipulated regulatory focus of the leader. The p-value should be smaller than 0.05 in order to be of significance. Furthermore, again a regression analysis was used to test the effect of the mediating LMX on PSUB. To be more specific, the 9th model of the SPSS
PROCESS macro function created by Hayes (2012) was used to test the moderated-mediation on its significance. Lastly, descriptive tests were used in order to reveal certain demographic characteristics of the participants.
RESULTS
In this section I will first analyze whether the manipulation was successful. After that, regression weight and test values of the variables are provided, including their significances.
First, it was important to know whether the manipulation had worked. The people who read the prevention focused scenario showed lower coherence of the promotion focused manipulation check questions (M = 2.67, SD = 1.02) than the people who read the promotion focused scenario (M = 5.79, SD = 1.10), F(1, 97) = 213.98, p < 0.001. The results were similar for the scenario with the prevention focused leader. The participants who were provided with the prevention focused scenario scored higher on the prevention focused manipulation check questions (M = 5.80, SD = 1.18) than the participants who were provided with the promotion focused scenario (M = 2.49, SD = 1.43), F(1, 97) = 156.67, p < 0.001. Therefore, it can be concluded that the scenarios provided functioned appropriately.
Results Hypotheses
positively related to PSUB and of significance, B = 0.48, p < 0.001. Therefore, it can be concluded that Hypothesis 2b is supported by the evidence.
Regarding Hypotheses 3a and 3b, as the influence of regulatory fit on LMX could not be supported due to a lack of significance, it does not seem useful to test these hypotheses further.
TABLE 1
Results regression analyses
LMX PSUB
Model 1 Model 2
Constant 4.25 (.10)** 1.19 (.44)**
Leader regulatory focus (LRF) .25 (.10)** -.31 (.10)**
Member promotion focus .10 (.10)
Member prevention focus .22 (.10)**
LRF × Member promotion focus .13 (.10) LRF × Member prevention focus -.07 (.10)
Leader-member exchange .48 (.10)**
R² .14 .22
Note. Standard Errors in Parentheses. Leader regulatory focus -1 = prevention focus, +1 =
promotion focus, N = 99. † p ≤ .10, * p ≤ .05, ** p ≤ .01, p ≤ .001.
DISCUSSION
the higher amount of LMX would consequently cause a higher amount of PSUB. However, the statistical results were unable to support the theoretical arguments that the regulatory fit of the leader with the subordinate would lead to more LMX. Nevertheless, the research was able to support the positive influence LMX has on PSUB through a scenario and questions modeling the relationship between a member and supervisor. Therefore, this research extends prior research concerning motives for unethical behavior and the implications of LMX. As it can be concluded that high level of social exchange between a leader and a member does not only have positive outcomes, but may also lead to PSUB, as a way for the member to reciprocate what the leader does for the member.
predominantly prevention focused prefer stability, honor obligations, and prefer a bureaucratic work context. Therefore, they might invest more in a leader and perform tasks in a similar manner as the leader would expect of them. This consequently may lead to a stable relationship between a leader and a subordinate with a higher amount of LMX.
Limitations and future directions. This research is not without its limitations. To start with,
with their subordinates could be researched and interviewed as these reflect a more realistic example of LMX and its consequences. Furthermore, these relationships go further than the initial interaction, and may therefore present different results than this study. Nevertheless, unethical behavior remains a delicate subject in the business area, which should be handled carefully.
Managerial implications. Managers should be aware of both the positive as well as the
potential negative effects of LMX. A good relationship with high exchange is good overall for both the supervisor and the subordinate, as well as the organization, as it increases organizational citizenship behavior and performance (Deluga, 1998; van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, & van Dijk, 2000). However, as this thesis has proven, the dark side of the social exchange between the supervisor and the subordinate might have unethical consequences as well. Even though PSUB might be in favor of the leader in the short term, allowing immoral behavior from employees will set a wrong example in the organization. Therefore, managers should set an ethical example and try to prevent the negative consequences. Nevertheless, as LMX leads to positive behaviors as well, it is advised not to discourage the social exchange relationship. Instead, managers should always be clear about the tolerated behaviors resulting from LMX, and explicitly state that unethical behavior will not be accepted.
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
Aaker, J. L., & Lee, A. Y. 2001. “I” seek pleasures and “we” avoid pains: The role of self- regulatory goals in information processing and persuasion. Journal of Consumer
Research, 28: 33–49.
Bauer, T. N. & Green S. G. 1996. Development of Leader-Member Exchange: A Longitudinal Test. Academy of Management Journal, 39(6): 1538-1567.
Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Brockner, J., & Tory Higgins, E. E. 2001. Regulatory Focus Theory: Implications for the Study of Emotions at Work. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 86(1): 35-66. 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.
Dansereau Jr., F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. 1975. A Vertical Dyad Linkage Approach to Leadership within Formal Organizations. A Longitudinal Investigation of the Role Making Process.
Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 13(1): 46-78.
Deluga, R. J. 1998. Leader-Member Exchange Quality and Effectiveness Rating. Group &
Organization Management, 23(2): 189-216.
Dienesch, R. M. & Liden, R. C. 1986. Leader-Member Exchange Model of Leadership: A Critique and Further Development. Academy of Management Review, 11(3): 618-634.
Gino, F., & Margolis, J. D. 2011. Bringing ethics into focus: How regulatory focus and risk preferences influence (Un)ethical behavior. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision
Processes, 115(2): 145-156.
Greenberg, J. 2002. Who stole the money, and when? Individual and situational determinants of employee theft. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89: 985–1003. Higgins, T. E. 1998. Promotion and prevention: regulatory focus as a motivational principle.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30: 1-46.
Higgins, T. E. 2000. Making a Good Decision: Value from Fit. American Psychologist, 55(11): 1217-1230.
Higgins, T. E. 2005. Value from Regulatory Fit. Current Directions in Psychological Science
(Wiley-Blackwell), 14(4): 209-213.
Higgins, T. E., Cesario, J., Hagiwara, N., Spiegel, S., & Pittman, T. 2010. Increasing or decreasing interest in activities: the role of regulatory fit. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 98(4): 559-572.
Jones, T. M. 1991. Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16(2): 366–395.
Kark, R. & Van Dijk, D. 2007. Motivation to lead, motivation to follow: the role of the self-regulatory focus in leadership. Academy of Management Review, 32(2): 500-528.
Liden, R. C. & Graen, G. 1980. Generalizability of the Vertical Dyad Linkage Model of Leadership. Academy Of Management Journal, 23(3): 451-465.
Liden, R. C. & Maslyn J. M. 1998. Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: an empirical Assessment through Scale Development. Journal of Management, 24(1): 43-72.
Liu, S., Lin, X., Hu, W. 2013. How followers’ unethical behavior is triggered by leader-member exchange: the mediating effect of job satisfaction. Social Behavior and Personality, 41(3): 357-366.
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.
Righetti, F., Finkenauer, C., & Rusbult, C. 2011. The benefits of interpersonal regulatory fit for individual goal pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(4): 720–736. Sue-Chan, C., Wood, R. E., & Latham, G. P. 2012. Effect of a Coach’s Regulatory Focus and an
Individual’s Implicit Person Theory on Individual Performance. Journal of Management, 38(3): 809-835.
Umphress, E. E., Bingham, J. B. & Mitchell, M. S. 2010. Unethical Behavior in the Name of the Company: The Moderating Effect of Organizational Identification and Positive Reciprocity Beliefs on Unethical Pro-Organizational Behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4): 769-780.
Umphress, E. E. & Bingham, J. B. 2011. When employees do bad things for good reasons: examining unethical pro-organizational behaviors. Organization Science, 22(3): 621-640. Wu, C., McMullen J. S., Neubert, M. J., & Yi. X. 2008. The influence of leader regulatory focus
APPENDIX A Online Questionnaire
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am a master student Human Resource Management at the University of Groningen. To finish my program, I am writing my master thesis on the decisions that employees make in
organizational settings. You are hereby invited to participate in this investigation. Participation is voluntarily.
Within this investigation, you will first answer questions regarding your personality. Then, you will read a scenario about a supervisor within an organizational setting, and will subsequently be asked to answer some questions with regards to this scenario. Finally, you will be presented with some questions regarding your general information. The study will take between 5 and 10 minutes to complete and will be anonymously processed. This means that your name will not be linked to this research and will not be provided to third parties.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Sincerely, Nienke Westdijk
1. In general, I am focused on preventing negative events.
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 goals.
8. I often think about how I will achieve 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.
11. I am more oriented toward preventing losses than I am toward achieving gains. 12. My major goal right now is to achieve my ambitions.
13. My major goal right now is to avoid becoming a failure.
14. I see myself as someone who is primarily striving to reach my “ideal self”—to fulfill my hopes, wishes, and aspirations.
15. I see myself as someone who is primarily striving to become the self I “ought” to be—to fulfill my duties, responsibilities, and obligations.
16. In general, I am focused on achieving positive outcomes.
17. I often imagine myself experiencing good things that I hope will happen to me. 18. Overall, I am more oriented toward achieving success than preventing failure.
Scenario 1: You’ve been working for your supervisor Tom for a year now and have gotten to know him. He comes across to you as a person who dislikes making mistakes. He wants to meet his duties, obligations and responsibilities, and has a need to do what he ought to do. He is always stressing the importance of working thoroughly and accurately, instead of creatively. Tom dislikes change, dislikes things to become worse than they are now, and dislikes losing things that are important for him. Tom therefore does not take a lot of risks, so that he may reduce potential failure.
Scenario 2: You’ve been working for your supervisor Tom for a year now and have gotten to know him. He comes across to you as a person who is indifferent to making mistakes. He wants to fulfill his hopes, wishes and aspirations, and has a need to do what he wants to do. He doesn’t stress working thoroughly and accurately, but favors creativity. Tom likes change, likes things to become better than they are now, and likes gaining things that are important to him. Tom
therefore takes a lot of risks, so that he may increase potential successes.
The following statements reflect how you perceive your supervisor Tom. Please imagine the relationship between you and your supervisor Tom presented earlier. Based on this
relationship, indicate to what extent you agree with these statements. You can do so on a scale from 1 (Fully disagree) to 7 (Fully agree).
1. I would like my supervisor Tom very much as a person.
2. Tom would be the kind of person one would like to have as a friend. 3. Tom would be a lot of fun to work with.
5. Tom would come to my defense if I were "attacked" by others.
6. Tom would defend me to others in the organization if I made an honest mistake. 7. I would do work for Tom that goes beyond what is specified in my job description.
8. I would be willing to apply extra efforts, beyond those normally required, to meet my Tom's work goals.
9. I would not mind working my hardest for Tom.
10. I would be impressed with Tom's knowledge of his/her job. 11. I would respect Tom's knowledge of and competence on the job. 12. I would admire Tom's professional skills.
The following statements reflect how far you would go to help your supervisor Tom. Please imagine the relationship you have with your supervisor Tom presented earlier. Based on this relationship, indicate to what extent you agree with these statements. You can do so on a scale from 1 (Fully disagree) to 7 (Fully agree).
1. If it would help Tom, I would misrepresent the truth to make my supervisor look good. 2. If it would help Tom, I would exaggerate the truth about my supervisor's successes to others. 3. If it would benefit Tom, I would withhold negative information about my supervisor to others. 4. If Tom needed me to, I would make sure that problems for which he is responsible are
delegated to others.
5. I would postpone my work if Tom would ask me to, even if this is harmful to others. 6. If necessary, I would not publish information that could harm Tom.
you agree with these statements. You can do so on a scale from 1 (Fully disagree) to 7 (Fully agree).
My supervisor Tom is focused on preventing failure. My supervisor Tom is focused on potential successes.
My supervisor Tom likes stability and therefore changes make him anxious. My supervisor Tom enjoys changes and therefore likes creativity.
My supervisor Tom dislikes risky choices. My supervisor Tom likes taking a lot of risks.
General information: What is your gender? What year were you born? What is your nationality?
What is your current occupation?
