The Effect of Leader Regulatory Focus on Problem Recognition:
The Role of Employee Attention
Master Thesis
MSc Human Resource Management University of Groningen Faculty of Economics & Business
July 1, 2018 Gernot Minderop Student Number: s3488519 Sledemennerstraat 1-10 9718 BW Groningen e-mail: g.minderop.1@student.rug.nl Supervisor:
Eva van der Lans University of Groningen
The Effects of Leader Regulatory Focus on Problem Recognition mediated
by Employee Attention
Abstract
Problem recognition is becoming more important because of the rising complexity of the organizational context. However, most of the current research has mainly focused on the latter steps of the problem solving process, whereas problem recognition did not receive a lot of attention. This study examines the effect of leader regulatory focus on problem recognition through employee attention. I predict that leaders will either act goal-oriented and show eagerness, by having a promotion focus, or they will act vigilant and avoidant because of their prevention focus. Promotion-focused leaders induce a broad focus of attention in their followers, whereas prevention-focused leaders induce a narrow focus of attention in their followers. Broad attention will lead followers to recognize problems in terms of opportunities. In contrast, narrow attention will lead followers to recognize problems in terms of threats. The data was gathered using a survey to question leader as well as employees. The findings show that the mediation analyses did not provide any proof for the proposed assumptions in this study. Thus, my hypotheses were rejected. Several implications and directions for future research round off this study.
Introduction
Within organizations, problems belong to the everyday business. Whereas in some organizations, recognizing a problem at an early stage can save the company from losses, in other companies, it is vital for the firm itself. As the tasks and problems within organizations have grown to be more complex, creative problem solving becomes more important as well (Reiter-Palmon & Illies, 2004). Not surprisingly, over the past years the field of creative problem solving has been researched in many ways and its importance has grown tremendously. Creative problem solving is the ability to connect various stimuli which do not seem to fit, as well as linking different components in new ways (Isen, Daubman, & Nowicki, 1987). While most research focused on the actual solving of a given problem, little attention has been paid to problem recognition, more specifically, how problems are noticed in the first place (Pretz, Naples, & Sternberg, 2003). As an organization is a social system, leadership plays in important role in problem recognition. However, due to the scarce research on problem recognition, we have little understanding of how leaders might influence this process. Leadership is described as “the ability of an individual to influence, motivate, and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organization” (House, Hanges, Ruiz-Quintanilla, Dorfman, Javidan & Dickson, 1999: 184). Thus, leaders might also influence and motivate their employees to recognize certain problems in the organizational context.
and tested in the field. Reiter-Palmon and Robinson (2009) have called upon more research regarding problem recognition and its connection to individual values. Research has shown that individuals can differ in the way they recognize problems (Reiter-Palmon, Mumford, Boes, Runco, 1997). Therefore, some employees may recognize problems in terms of opportunities, whereas others may recognize problems in terms of threats. I aim to bring more clarity to the field of problem recognition within organizations, thereby improving our understanding of employee problem recognition and the leaders’ influence in this process.
Recognizing problems highly depends on the people within a company and their abilities, motivation, and behavior (Pretz et al., 2003). The behavior of the employees in a company is highly influenced by their leaders. Due to the differences in behavior of leaders, the impacts on the employees’ performances are expected to be different (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990). Previous research on Leader Regulatory Focus Theory has proposed that a leader’s behavior differs depending on his or her focus (Higgins 1998). Promotion-focused leaders preoccupy themselves with hopes and achievements, whereas prevention-focused leaders are concerned with necessity and security (Higgins, 1998). Kark and Van Dijk (2007) argued that the leaders’ behavior will differ, depending on the regulatory focus of the leader. By drawing on Leader Regulatory Focus Theory, I expect promotion-focused leaders will focus on approaching gains. Furthermore, Derryberry and Tucker (1994) found a relationship between approach-related states and broad focus of attention, which makes individuals focus on global aspects. Therefore, I propose that employees whose leader is promotion focused might be trained to develop a broad focus of attention, thereby looking at things from many perspectives and for that reason recognize problems related to opportunities more easily. On the other hand, prevention focus leads people to be more avoidant of failure (Higgins, 1998). Easterbrook (1959) states that an avoidance-related state will lead to a narrow focus of attention, which means that people only focus on local aspects. Thus, I expect that prevention-focused leaders can lead the employees to develop a narrow focus of attention, by being trained to always be on alert and recognizing problems that could potentially lead to failure (i.e., threats).
understanding of how leader regulatory focus influences followers’ behavior, especially their focus of attention. Furthermore, this study contributes to the field of broad and narrow attention, by examining how these foci of attention can be induced and what effects they have on problem recognition. Additionally, this study has an impact on the field of problem recognition, as it will result in a better understanding of how problems can be recognized in the organizational context.
Besides, this research provides several practical implications. Results of this study can lead to an improved understanding of the influence of leaders on employee attention as well as employee problem recognition. Thus, the results of this study might help to provide implications, which can help leaders and organizations to advance their problem solving. Furthermore, the results of this study show the effects of employee attention on employee problem recognition. In turn, organizations may decide to induce either a broad or narrow focus depending on the organizations’ cultures and the problems that are usually encountered in the organizations. Additionally, the results of this study can help to determine in which situation a certain leader regulatory focus might lead to the recognition of problems in terms of opportunities or threats. Depending on the organization’s culture and goals, the results may provide valuable information for organizations in determining what kind of leader they want to have in a specific position. To examine the proposed effects, a field study will be conducted (see Figure 1).
This paper is structured as follows. First, the theoretical definitions will be provided, and the hypotheses will be given, followed by the methods and results. Next, the discussion and the conclusion summarize the main points and the limitations of this study. Finally, I will provide suggestions for future research in the field of leader regulatory focus, broad/narrow attention, and problem recognition.
--- Insert Figure 1 about here
Theoretical Background
Leader Regulatory Focus and Employee AttentionThe concept of the regulatory focus was conceptualized by Higgins (1997). Regulatory Focus Theory is based on the hedonic principle, which states that “people approach pleasure and avoid pain” (Higgins, 1997: 1281). That is, individuals try to reach desired end-states or move away from undesired end-states as distant as possible through different motivational mechanisms (Crowe & Higgins, 1997). Higgins distinguishes between two underlying motivational mechanisms by which individuals try to attain their desired end-states: promotion and prevention foci. These regulatory foci differ in their cause and effects on different aspects of motivated behavior (Higgins, 1997). Promotion focus concentrates on “advancement, growth, and accomplishment” (i.e., maximal goals) (Higgins, 1997: 1282). That is, individuals are inclined to arrange their actual selves exactly like their ideal selves (Brockner & Higgins, 2001). Higgins (1997) refers to the upbringing of a child, whose actions determine whether the child experiences the positive consequences or has to live without the joy of these consequences. Therefore, the child focuses on realizing achievements and accomplishing desires to attain the so-called nurturance needs. Ideals and rewards become the main objective of individuals with a promotion focus. In contrast, individuals with a prevention focus are prone to avoid negative results. Returning to the example of the child, prevention focus is implemented by concentrating on security needs. The child experiences pleasure by the non-occurrence of negative results, whereas he or she feels pain by the non-occurrence of negative results. Therefore, the child is focused on “insuring safety, being responsible, and meeting obligations” (i.e., minimal goals) (Higgins, 1997: 1282). Higgins (1997) argues that the caretakers in the example of the child could be employers in later life. This suggests that certain motivational states (i.e., promotion vs. prevention foci) might be induced by supervisors or leaders. As in the example of the child, the actions an employer takes and the goals he or she sets for his or her employees will determine further behavior and goal setting of these employees. Thus, in determining the consequences of a certain action, an employer can convey the message of either promotion or prevention to his or her employees.
affirmed that regulatory foci of leaders have different effects on the motivational states of their followers. Derryberry and Tucker (1994) related motivational states (i.e., approach, avoidance) to the focus of attention of individuals.
positive feelings (i.e. joy) not only allow for the recognition of more stimuli, but also let individuals make sense of these stimuli in novel ways, representing a broader global and complex thinking. I expect that leader promotion focus which includes a positive vision (i.e. goals, growth) due to the approach related state, is likely to be interrelated with a connection of stimuli in novel ways. Thus, the promotion focus of the leader makes the employees able to take in a great amount of information (i.e. stimuli), as well as enabling them to make sense of that information in more than a single way.
Easterbrook (1959) argued that avoidance related behavior is related to a narrow focus of attention. Avoidance related behavior can be assimilated to behavior common for the prevention focus, for example security and non-losses. Thus, I expect that leader prevention focus will induce a narrow focus of attention, enabling the employees to focus on stimuli that represent threats. On the other hand, concerning the promotion focus, Derryberry and Tucker (1994) found a connection between approach related behavior and a broad focus of attention. The approach state can be compared to the promotion focus. The approach state represents the need for achievements and growth, inhibited by leaders with a promotion focus. Thus, I expect that a promotion focused leader will induce a state of broad attention in his or her employees. This broad attention will allow the followers to scan their environment for stimuli representing opportunities, such as advancement and growth
recognized and responded to by individuals in an avoidance-state (i.e., prevention focus). In conclusion, I expect leader regulatory focus to have a direct effect on employee problem recognition and also, that depending on the induced focus of attention, followers may react differently to environmental cues, and thereby, may also have influence on problem recognition (i.e., recognition of problem cues on terms of opportunities or threats).
Problem Recognition
A problem is defined as a gap between the current and an (un)desired alternative state (Evans, 1991 in Basadur, Ellspermann, & Evans, 1994). Thus, a problem can result in positive as well as negative end-states. When solving a problem, most of the times the problem is not simply stated or known. First, the problem has to be recognized in a given context, before it can be further defined and represented. Problem recognition is the first step in the process of problem construction, followed by problem definition and problem representation (Pretz, Naples, Sternberg, 2003).Cowan (1986) describes problem recognition as an ongoing process, which can last from seconds to years and is happening among various other activities. Problem recognition can range from easily found problems, to ones that need a high subjective effort for their recognition. Sometimes this process is expected to be automatic, and occasionally it contains conscious endeavor. In general, problems can be divided into two groups, well-structured and ill-well-structured problems (Pretz, Naples, Sternberg, 2003). Well-well-structured problems offer information providing a straightforward course towards the solution. For example, calculating the price of a sales item. Thus, well defined-problems do not need to be recognized, as they are already clearly defined. Ill-structured problems, on the other hand, do not have this straightforward path towards the solution. Problems of this category miss a precise statement, which complicates the further steps of problem definition and problem representation. Furthermore, there is most likely not only a singular solution to an ill-structured problem, but many plausible solutions. Thus, ill-structured problems can be interpreted in different ways, such as opportunities or threats. An example for an ill-structured problem would be constructing a house (Simon, 1973). While the solution path for calculating the price of a sales item is clearly stated, in designing a house, there is no explicit criterion given to try a possible solution. When constructing a house, the designer can choose between various options and features and has to take many factors into account.
1998: 126). Also, Mumford et al. (1994), in their model, argue for the importance of attention and perception of the problem solver. That is, problem solvers have to be aware of deviations, hints, and patterns in the environment. Therefore, the attention focus of employees may play a great deal in the recognition and connecting of the stimuli in the organizational and environmental context, and thus, in problem recognition. To be more specific, I expect that a broad focus of attention will lead to problem recognition of cues related to opportunities. As already explained, the broad focus of attention is assumed to be induced by the promotion focus of the leader. Due to the employees approach-related behavior enacted by the leader promotion focus, they will have a broad focus of attention and engage in recognizing problems in their environmental surroundings, which they see as opportunities. Employees with a broad focus are able to find many cues in their surroundings, even those that require unusual and novel ways of connecting certain stimuli. Contrary, I expect that a narrow focus of attention will lead to problem recognition of cues related to threats. The narrow focus is induced by the prevention focus of the leader. Due to employees avoidance-related behavior enacted by the leader promotion focus, they will have a narrow focus of attention and engage in recognizing problems in their environmental surroundings, which they regard as threats. Employees with a narrow focus become determined to avoid mistakes and losses and will pay more attention to the local aspects which may imply threats in the working context. In brief, I propose that on the one hand, a promotion-focused leader induces a broad focus of attention in his or her employees. This broad attention will lead to problem recognition of cues in terms of opportunities. On the other hand, a prevention-focused leader induces a narrow focus of attention in his or her employees. The narrow attention will lead to an improved problem recognition of cues in the sense of threats.
environmental stimuli in novel and creative ways (Isen, Johnson, Mertz, & Robinson, 1985). On the other hand, research found evidence that the prevention focus leads to a narrow focus of attention, thereby enhancing the local processing of information and reducing cognitive flexibility, which can lead to an enhanced focus on specific details (Baas, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2008).
In brief, I formulate the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1A: A promotion-focused leader will induce a broad focus of attention in his or her employees, thereby resulting in employee problem recognition of cues related to opportunities.
Methods
We conducted a field research, in order to test the stated hypotheses. To be more specific, we examined the effects of leadership on problem recognition. More precisely, I investigated whether a promotion-focused leader will induce a broad focus of attention in his or her employees, thereby enacting the problem recognition of cues related to opportunities in his or her employees (H1A), as well as whether a prevention-focused leader will enact a narrow focus of attention in his or her employees, thereby enacting the problem recognition of cues related to threats in his or her employees (H1B).
Participants
A total of 250 participants completed the survey, working for companies in different industries located in the Netherlands and Germany. On the leader level, the results of the survey show that a total of 36 (23 male, 13 female) leaders responded to the survey. The age of the leaders ranges from 27 to 62, with a mean of 49.53 (SD = 8.6). A total of 23 leaders have a degree from a university of applied sciences as their highest educational achievement. Eight leaders have a university degree, only one has vocational training as highest education, and four of the leaders are holding a PhD.
On the side of the subordinates, a total of 214 employees (121 female, 80 male, 13 unspecified) filled out the online-survey. The socio-demographics show that the age of the subordinates ranges from 22 to 66 and has a mean of 39.86 (SD = 11.39). As with the leaders, most employees have a degree of a university of applied sciences as highest degree of education (95). Furthermore, more employees have a vocational degree (51) than a university degree (44). Some employees have a high school degree (7), which no leader had. The number of employees holding a PhD (4) equals the number of leaders who have a PhD (4). Thirteen participants did not give a statement about their education.
Procedures
interviewees, further information about the survey was provided face-to-face, by phone, or via e-mail using an information letter. Then information letter, used to convey the importance of the research to participants, was available in Dutch and German. This way, we were able to ensure a higher participation within Germany, next to the participants in the Netherlands. Furthermore, comprehension of the information letter was assured in both countries. On the last page of the information letter, leaders who wanted to take part in the survey filled in their name and e-mail address and those of their employees. After the e-mail addresses of the participants were collected, the survey was sent to the leaders and employees via e-mail. Leaders received a survey in which they answered questions about themselves and their employees. The survey answered by the employees differed from the survey of the leaders. Employees had to answer questions about themselves, their work, and their leader. Participants were able to complete the survey in either the Dutch or English language. For every leader questioned, we questioned five to ten employees of this leader, in order to gain insights on their relationships. The survey was anonymous and voluntary, to ensure confidentiality.
Measures
The measures for this study were leader regulatory focus, broad and narrow attention of employees, as well as problem recognition of opportunities and threats.
Leader Regulatory Focus. To measure leader regulatory focus, I used a measure from Lockwood, Jordan, and Kunda (2002), using two subscales for measuring promotion and prevention goals. Additionally, I used items measuring eagerness in the promotion focus and vigilance in the prevention focus developed by Vriend, Hamstra, Said, Janssen, Jordan, and Nijstad (submitted for publication). The questionnaire contained items which were rated on a 5-point Likert-scale, ranging from fully disagree (1) to fully agree (5). There were 24 items in total. Items for measuring prevention focus state: “At work, I constantly strive to avoid undesirable outcomes”, “At work, I constantly strive to avoid insecurity”, “At work, to reach my goals, I am concerned with making mistakes”. For the promotion focus the items would ask about statements such as: “At work, I constantly strive to gain desirable outcomes”, ”At work, I constantly strive to grow as a person”, “At work, to attain my goals, I enthusiastically embrace all opportunities” (aPromotion = .86, aPrevention = .86).
Likert-scales range from fully disagree (1) to fully agree (5). The scale of Baer et al. (2006) consists of thirteen items which are derived from the MAAS (Mindful Attention Awareness Scale) and the KIMS (Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills). From the Attentional Control Scale (Derryberry & Reed, 2002) on the other hand, I only used three items. The scale is concerned with discovering attentional shifting and control. Example items of the scales used to measure narrow and broad attention would be: ”I rush through activities without being really attentive to them”, ”I am able to play close attention to one thing for a long period of time”, “When I need to concentrate and solve a problem, I have trouble focusing my attention” (a = .77)1.
Problem Recognition. Problem recognition was measured by a scale which was developed for this research. It consisted of two items. One item asked about the recognition of cues related to opportunities. The other asked about the recognition of cues related to threats. The items on the scale could be answered on a 5-point Likert-scale ranging from never (1) to almost always (5). The items for problem recognition were: “How often do you yourself identify opportunities that can improve the current situation?” and “How often do you yourself identify threats that can worsen the current situation?”
Control Variables. The control variables that were used, are age and gender. Prior studies measuring employee creativity and leader influence stated that these demographics may have an effect on the outcome (Baer, 2012).
Data Analysis
After collecting the data through the surveys, the data was analyzed by using different procedures in IBM SPSS. During these tests, I used correlation-, and regression analyses, as well as process macro by Andrew F. Hayes (2013), to analyze the data.
1 The eight variables I chose for broad and narrow attention showed an insufficient Cronbach’s Alpha
Results
Descriptive & Correlation AnalysesTable 1 shows all the descriptive statistics of the variables used in my study (i.e., means, standard deviations, and correlations). Leader promotion focus was negatively and insignificantly correlated with employee recognition of opportunities (r = -.12, p > 0.10). Also, the correlation between leader prevention focus and problem recognition of threats showed a weak negative correlation (r = -.05, p > 0.10). Again, the correlation was not significant. Second, when looking at the correlation of promotion focus and broad/narrow attention, there was a positive correlation, which however, was not significant (r = .20, p > 0.10). The correlation between prevention focus and broad/narrow attention was insignificant as well (r = .14, p > 0.10). Last, the correlation between broad/narrow attention and problem recognition of opportunities was negative and not significant (r = -.08, p > 0.10). There was a positive correlation between broad/narrow attention and recognition of threats. Nevertheless, this correlation was not significant (r = .11, p > 0.10).
Due to the insignificant correlations, I repeated the correlation analysis using employee regulatory focus instead of leader regulatory focus. Thereby, I intended to investigate whether the use of employee regulatory focus provides different outcomes as compared to the analysis with leader regulatory focus. Employee promotion focus was negatively and significantly correlated with broad/narrow attention (r = -.14, p < .10). There was no significant correlation between employee prevention focus and broad/narrow attention (r = -.01, p > .10). However, there was a positive and significant correlation between employee promotion focus and problem recognition of opportunities (r = .32, p < .01). Furthermore, employee promotion focus was also correlated significantly to problem recognition of threats (r = .14, p < .05). On the contrary, employee prevention focus was not significantly correlated to recognition of threats (r = -.11, p > .10). However, there was a significant negative correlation with the recognition of opportunities (r = -.13, p < .10).
Hypotheses Testing
In further analyzing the data, I used linear regression analyses to examine the direct effects of the leader regulatory focus on problem recognition. For the indirect effects of the leader regulatory focus on problem recognition mediated by employee attention, I used PROCESS macro for SPSS developed by Andrew F. Hayes (2013). I estimated two models, in which I regressed problem recognition in terms of opportunities and problem recognition in terms of threats on broad/narrow attention and the regulatory foci of the leader, while I controlled for age and gender. Table 2 displays the results of the mediation analyses.
Leader Promotion Focus, Broad Attention, and PR of opportunities (Hypothesis 1A). Hypothesis 1 stated that promotion-focused leaders will induce a broad focus of attention in their employees, which will lead to problem recognition of cues related to opportunities. Unexpectedly, the outcome of the linear regression showed an insignificant direct effect of leader promotion focus on problem recognition of opportunities (B = -.12, t = -.61, p > .10). The results showed a positive effect of leader promotion focus on broad/narrow attention, but the effect was not significant (B = .37, t = .93, p > .10). Also, the effect of broad/narrow attention on recognition of opportunities was not significant (B = .07, t = .40, p > .10). As expected, the direct effect of leader promotion focus on problem recognition of opportunities was not significant. However, it was also negative what was not expected (B = -.26, t = -.68, p > .10). To conclude, I did not find a significant mediation effect of broad/narrow attention with problem recognition of opportunities as dependent variable (effect broad/narrow attention = .03, CI = -.10, .43), thereby Hypothesis 1A was not supported.
--- Insert Table 2 about here --- Supplementary Analyses
As the expected effects mentioned above were all insignificant, I decided to perform some further analyses, to examine whether I can find significant effects on other levels than the proposed ones. I decided to switch the leader regulatory focus with the employee regulatory focus. Due to the much larger number of participants on the employee level, I wanted to investigate whether the insignificant findings might be the result of low participation on the leader level. Furthermore, I aggregated the data of broad/narrow attention and problem recognition of opportunities and threats from the individual level to the team level. Aggregating data is common when investigating hierarchical relationships (Hofmann, 1997). Thereby, I was able to analyze whether the outcome of the mediated effect of leader regulatory focus on problem recognition differed when examining it on the team level.
Employee Regulatory Focus, Attention and PR. Due to the findings of positive and significant correlations for the regulatory focus of employees to problem recognition, I performed regression analyses for these variables as well. Again, using linear regressions and PROCESS macro by Hayes (2013). The outcome of the linear regression, measuring the direct effect of employee promotion focus on problem recognition of opportunities, was highly significant (B = .32, t = 4.86, p < .01). There was a negative significant effect of employee promotion focus on narrow/broad attention (B = -.18, t = -1.99, p < .05). However, similar to the prior regressions, there was no significant effect of broad/narrow attention on the recognition of opportunities (B = -.02, t = -.22, p > .10). The direct effect of employee promotion focus on problem recognition of opportunities was positive and significant (B = .43, t = 4.91, p < .01). In brief, there is a significant direct effect of employee promotion focus on problem recognition of opportunities. However, the indirect effect mediated by broad/narrow attention is not significant (effect broad/narrow attention = .003, CI = -.02, .04).
effect of employee prevention focus on problem recognition of threats mediated by broad/narrow attention was found (effect broad/narrow attention = -.001, CI = -.04, .02).
Aggregated Data Regressions. Continuing with the data analysis, I aggregated the variables for broad/narrow attention, as well as problem recognition of opportunities and problem recognition of threats, to the team level. Again, I used linear regression and PROCESS to examine whether the outcomes deliver the expected results in this condition. The linear regression showed no direct effect of leader promotion focus on problem recognition of opportunities (B = .40, t = .24, p > .10). In this condition, the results indicated no significant effect of leader promotion focus on broad/narrow attention (B = .03, t = .13, p > .10). Furthermore, the direct effect of broad/narrow attention on problem recognition of opportunities was significant (B = -.26, t = -1.93, p < .10), but negative which was not expected. Nevertheless, the mediation model stayed insignificant ( effect broad/narrow attention = -.01, CI = -.17, .08).
Whereas the analysis with the aggregated data showed no significant effect in the promotion-focus condition, the analysis for the prevention-focus condition did show significant effects. To be more specific, the linear regression showed a significant negative effect of leader prevention focus on the aggregated problem recognition of threats (B = -.43, t = -2.67, p < .05). Additionally, the expected effect of the leader prevention-focus on broad/narrow attention was significant (B = -.30, t = -2.79, p < .05), indicating that prevention focus leads to narrow attention. The effects of prevention focus on recognition of threats (B = -.16, t = -1.21, p > .10) and those of broad/narrow attention on recognition of threats (B = .30, t = 1.40, p > .10) were not significant. In brief, I did not find a significant mediation effect of broad/narrow attention in the model with the aggregated variable of problem recognition of threats as outcome variable (effect broad/narrow attention = -.09, CI = -.38, .03).
Discussion
In the present study, I examined the effects of leader regulatory focus on employee problem recognition mediated by the attentional focus of employees. To be more specific, I suggested that leader promotion focus is related to employee problem recognition in terms of opportunities through a broad focus of employee attention (Hypothesis 1A). On the other hand, I suggested that leader prevention focus is related to employee problem recognition in terms of threats through a narrow focus of employee attention (Hypothesis 1B).
The analysis of the first hypothesis showed positive effects, which I expected. However, these effects were not significant. Thus, the first hypothesis was not supported. Furthermore, the direct effect of leader promotion focus on problem recognition was not significant, indicating that there is no effect of leader promotion focus on recognition of opportunities by employees. In contrast to my results, many researchers have found positive significant relations between the regulatory focus of an individual and the scope of attention (i.e. broad and narrow attention) (Baas et al., 2008; Friedman & Förster, 2010). Nonetheless, these studies were all conducted in experimental designs and different environmental contexts. Therefore, the results of this study may have been different, if this study had tested the proposed assumptions in an experimental design. However, an experimental design for the presented research would have been very costly and time-consuming and thus, may not have been possible. Another reason for the insignificant findings might be that I only examined the chronic leader regulatory foci. However, the regulatory foci can also depend on situational cues, enacting either one of the two foci in certain situations that require either the promotion or the prevention focus (Johnson, King, Lin, Scott, Walker, Wang, 2017). This suggests that one leader may adopt his or her focus to the given situation and influence his or her employees differently, depending on the situation. Therefore, employees who have the same leader but work on different tasks may have a different perspective on the current regulatory focus of their leader, as one of the tasks may require the leader to act promotion-focused and the other employee’s task requires the leader to act prevention-focused. Furthermore, participation on the leader level was not as high as expected. In turn, this low number of leaders may have resulted in the insignificant effects of leader regulatory focus on broad/narrow attention.
factors also play an important role in the recognition of problems. It sounds plausible that past experience and the environment would have an impact on the recognition of certain cues. Thus, because I only used cognitive style (i.e., broad and narrow attention) and did not include problem environment and past experience of the employees in the mediation model, the analysis may have resulted in insignificant outcome. The insignificant effects of leader regulatory focus on broad/narrow attention are partly consistent with findings of Lyles and Mitroff (1980), who found that leaders can have influence on organizational problem recognition, however not much. Furthermore, their results were insignificant as well. Lyles and Mitroff (1980) state that problem recognition does not take place at an individual level, but at an organizational level. This might explain the insignificant effects of leader regulatory focus on problem recognition. Therefore, other factors, such as past experience and environment, may need to be accounted for, to find significant relationships.
In addition, I found a significant , yet negative, effect of employee promotion focus on broad attention. This effect shows that the more intense the promotion focus of the employee, the lower he/she scores on attention. Scoring low on the attentional scale means that the individual has a narrow attentional focus. However, I hypothesized that a promotion focus will lead to a broad focus of attention. Furthermore, this finding contrasts other research which provided proof of the relationship of promotion focus and broad attention (Baas, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2008; Friedman & Förster, 2010). Maybe, this negative relationship was the outcome of certain situational factors. As stated above, the regulatory focus can differ under specific circumstances (Johnson et al., 2017). Therefore, an usually promotion-focused employee may have enacted a situational prevention focus due to a specific task or a crisis, thereby narrowing his or her focus of attention. Possibly, the employee encountered some stimuli between answering the items for regulatory focus and completing the items for broad/narrow attention, which lead him or her to adopt the focus of attention. The insignificant relationship of broad attention to problem recognition in terms of opportunities may also be explained by the prior mentioned findings of Lyles and Mitroff (1980). More precisely that not only cognitive style (i.e., broad & narrow attention), but also environmental factors and past experience play an important role in the recognition of problems.
As stated in the results, I also performed analyses with the aggregated data of broad/narrow attention and problem recognition. However, in this condition most effects stayed insignificant. Furthermore, I found a negative effect of broad attention on the recognition of opportunities, which was significant. This finding states that having a broad focus does not improve the recognition of opportunities, to the contrary, it worsens it. Possibly, leader-employee relationship might have been a reason for this result. As stated before, leader-employees might feel intimidated by the leader pushing them to find cues related to opportunities (Tierney et al., 1999). Therefore, the employees’ ability to recognize problems in terms of opportunities may have decreased as a result of this intimidation.
focus and broad/narrow attention on problem recognition, more factors (e.g., past experience and environment) need to be accounted for (Lyles & Mitroff, 1980).
Whereas I found an unexpected significant effect in the mediation analysis with the aggregated data for my first hypothesis, I found an expected significant effect for my second hypothesis. More precisely, when using the aggregated data of broad/narrow attention, as well as problem recognition of threats, I found a significant effect of leader prevention focus on narrow attention. In this condition, prevention focus lead to narrow attention. This finding is in line with evidence of other research which found out that a prevention focus leads to narrow attention (Baas, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2008; Friedman & Förster, 2010)
Implications for Theory
Limitations and Future Research
this study was a cross-sectional study. The data was collected only at a single point in time. Future research should also conduct longitudinal studies. By observing the effects over a longer period of time, the results may turn out to be more reliable (Cook, Campell, & Shadish, 2002). Implications for Practice
In practice, these results can provide suggestions for the organizational context. As organizations and their practices are growing to be more complex, it becomes more important for organizations to understand leadership influences and its effects on employees. Therefore, this study contributed to improve the understanding and application of leadership. The results showed that having promotion-focused employees will lead to the recognition of cues related to opportunities. Therefore organizations, which work in an environment that requires mainly the recognition of opportunities, may use promotion-focused employees for certain positions or train their employees to adopt a situational promotion focus. Furthermore, prevention-focused leader will affect the attentional focus of his or her employees, thereby enacting a narrow focus of attention. This enables the employees to take in a variety of stimuli and to focus on the local aspects of a given context in great detail (Derryberry & Tucker, 1994). Thus, if a narrow focus of attention suits a certain organization better than a broad focus, organizations may want to have more prevention-focused leaders.
Conclusion
References
Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). A meta-analysis of 25 years of mood-creativity research: Hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus?. Psychological bulletin, 134(6), 779.
Baer, M. (2012). Putting creativity to work: The implementation of creative ideas in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 55(5), 1102-1119.
Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006). Using self-report assessment methods to explore facets of mindfulness. Assessment, 13(1), 27-45.
Basadur, M., Ellspermann, S. J., & Evans, G. W. (1994). A new methodology for formulating ill-structured problems. Omega, 22(6), 627-645.
Brockner, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2001). Regulatory focus theory: Implications for the study of emotions at work. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 86(1), 35-66.
Brophy, D. R. (1998). Understanding, measuring, and enhancing individual creative problem-solving efforts. Creativity Research Journal, 11(2), 123-150.
Ciuchta, M. P., Letwin, C., Stevenson, R. M., & McMahon, S. R. (2016). Regulatory focus and information cues in a crowdfunding context. Applied Psychology, 65(3), 490-514. Cook, T. D., Campbell, D. T., & Shadish, W. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental
designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Cowan, D. A. (1986). Developing a process model of problem recognition. Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 763-776.
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.
Derryberry, D., & Reed, M. A. (2002). Anxiety-related attentional biases and their regulation by attentional control. Journal of abnormal psychology, 111(2), 225.
Derryberry, D., & Tucker, D. M. (1994). Motivating the focus of attention. In P. M. Niedenthal & S. Kitayama (Eds.), The heart's eye: Emotional influences in perception and attention (pp. 167-196).
Easterbrook, J. A. (1959). The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of behavior. Psychological review, 66(3), 183.
Evans, J. R. (1991). Creative thinking in the decision and management sciences. South-Western Pub.
Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2001). The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity. Journal of personality and social psychology, 81(6), 1001.
Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2010). Implicit affective cues and attentional tuning: an integrative review. Psychological bulletin, 136(5), 875.
Gardner, D. G., Dunham, R. B., Cummings, L. L., & Pierce, J. L. (1989). Focus of attention at work: Construct definition and empirical validation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 62(1), 61-77.
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American psychologist, 52(12), 1280.
Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Advances in experimental social psychology, 30, 1-46.
Hofmann, D. A. (1997). An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical linear models. Journal of management, 23(6), 723-744.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., Dorfman, P. W., Javidan, M., Dickson, M., & Associates (1999). Cultural influences on leadership and organizations: Project GLOBE. In W. H. Mobley, M. J. Gessner & V. Arnold
Isen, A. M., Daubman, K. A., & Nowicki, G. P. (1987). Positive affect facilitates creative problem solving. Journal of personality and social psychology, 52(6), 1122.
Isen, A. M., Johnson, M. M., Mertz, E., & Robinson, G. F. (1985). The influence of positive affect on the unusualness of word associations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 48(6), 1413.
Johnson, R. E., King, D. D., Lin, S. H. J., Scott, B. A., Walker, E. M. J., & Wang, M. (2017). Regulatory focus trickle-down: How leader regulatory focus and behavior shape follower regulatory focus. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 140, 29-45.
Kark, R., & Van Dijk, D. (2007). Motivation to lead, motivation to follow: The role of the self-regulatory focus in leadership processes. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 500-528.
Lee, A. Y., Aaker, J. L., & Gardner, W. L. (2000). The pleasures and pains of distinct self-construals: The role of interdependence in regulatory focus. Journal of personality and social psychology, 78(6), 1122.
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.
Morse, E. V., & Gordon, G. (1974). Cognitive skills: A determinant of scientists' local-cosmopolitan orientation. Academy of Management Journal, 17(4), 709-723.
Mumford, M. D., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Redmond, M. R. (1994). Problem construction and cognition: Applying problem representations in ill-defined domains. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Creativity research. Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity (pp. 3-39). Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The leadership quarterly, 1(2), 107-142.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of applied psychology, 88(5), 879.
Pounds, W. F. (1969). The process of problem finding. IMR; Industrial Management Review (pre-1986), 11(1), 1.
Pretz, J. E., Naples, A. J., & Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Recognizing, defining, and representing problems. The psychology of problem solving, 30(3).
Reiter-Palmon, R., & Illies, J. J. (2004). Leadership and creativity: Understanding leadership from a creative problem-solving perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 55-77. Reiter-Palmon, R., Mumford, M. D., O'Connor Boes, J., & Runco, M. A. (1997). Problem
construction and creativity: The role of ability, cue consistency, and active processing. Creativity Research Journal, 10(1), 9-23.
Reiter-Palmon, R., & Robinson, E. J. (2009). Problem identification and construction: What do we know, what is the future? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(1), 43-47.
Simon, H. A. (1973). The structure of ill structured problems. Artificial intelligence, 4(3-4), 181-201.
Taylor, R. N. (1975). Perception of problem constraints. Management Science, 22(1), 22-29. Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M., & Graen, G. B. (1999). An examination of leadership and
employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel psychology, 52(3), 591-620.
Van-Dijk, D., & Kluger, A. N. (2004). Feedback sign effect on motivation: Is it moderated by regulatory focus?. Applied Psychology, 53(1), 113-135.
Vriend, T., Hamstra, M. R. W., Said, R., Janssen, O., Jordan, J., & Nijstad, B.A. (submitted for publication). Regulatory Focus Theory: Disentangling Goals and Strategies.
Wachtel, P. L. (1967). Conceptions of broad and narrow attention. Psychological Bulletin, 68(6), 417-429.
Appendix B
Table 1Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Leader Promotion Focus 3.83 0.54 (.86)
2. Leader Prevention Focus 3.17 0.66 .21 (.86)
3. Broad/Narrow Attention 2.47 0.68 .20 .14 (.77)
4. PRopportunities 3.56 0.67 -.12 .06 -.08 -
5. PRthreats 2.92 0.80 -.26 -.05 .11 .27*** -
6. Employee Promotion Focus 3.81 0.54 .21 .53*** -.14* .32*** .14** (.84)
7. Employee Prevention Focus 3.50 0.63 .30 -.09 -.01 -.13* -.11 .24*** (.85)
Table 2
Mediation Analyses
Hypotheses 1A, 1B , & Supplementary Analyses
Broad/Narrow Attention Problem Recognition Broad Narrow Opportunities Threats
Constant .52 (1.76) 1.18 (1.26) .43**(1.63) 2.02 (1.51)
Leader Age .01 (.02) .01 (.02) .00 (.02) .02 (.02)
Leader Gender .44 (.36) .52 (.36) .19 (.34) .09 (.44)
Leader Promotion Focus .37 (.40) -.26 (.38)
Leader Prevention Focus .20 (.22) -.06 (.27)
Broad/Narrow Attention .07 (.19) -.03 (.24)
R2 .10 .10 .04 .06
Supplementary Analyses
Employee Regulatory Focus
Broad/Narrow Attention Problem Recognition Broad Narrow Opportunities Threats Constant 3.40***(.42) 2.68***(.32) 1.67***(.46) 3.48***(.44) Employee Age -.01 (.00) -.00 (.00) .01* (.00) -.01**(.00)
Employee Promotion Focus -.18**(.09) .43***(.09)
Employee Prevention Focus -.01 (.08) -.13 (.09)
Broad/Narrow Attention -.02 (.07) .14*(.08)
R2 .02 .00 .12 .05
Aggregated Data of Broad/Narrow Attention & Problem Recognition Broad/Narrow Attention Problem Recognition Broad Narrow Opportunities Threats Constant 1.65***(.99) 2.95***(.74) 3.11***(.68) 2.94***(1.00)
Leader Age .01(.01) .01 (.01) .01*(.01) .00 (.01)
Employee Age .00 (.01) -.00 (.01) .01 (.01) -.01 (.01)
Leader Gender .43**(.20) .36**(.17) .04 (.14) -.01 (.20)
Leader Promotion Focus .03 (.23) .10 (.15)
Leader Prevention Focus -.30**(.11) -.16 (.13)
Broad/Narrow Attention -.26*(.13) .30 (.22)
R2 .18 .38 .29 .27
Appendix C
Regulatory Focus MeasurementsPromotion Focus
At work, I constantly strive to gain desirable outcome. At work, I constantly strive to gain advantages.
At work, I constantly strive to maximize positive outcomes. At work, I constantly strive to grow as a person.
At work, I constantly strive to develop personally. At work, I constantly strive to improve myself. At work, I constantly strive to pursue my dreams. At work, I constantly strive to live up to my ideals. At work, I constantly strive to fulfill my hopes.
At work, to attain my goals, I enthusiastically embrace all opportunities. At work, to attain my goals, I am eager to use all possible ways or means. At work, to attain my goals, I am eager to take all necessary actions.
Prevention Focus
At work, I constantly strive to avoid undesirable outcomes. At work, I constantly strive to minimize negative outcomes. At work, I constantly strive to minimize losses.
At work, I constantly strive to avoid insecurity. At work, I constantly strive to avoid danger. At work, I constantly strive to avoid risks.
At work, I constantly strive to stay within my duties and obligations. At work, I constantly strive to adhere to the rules.
At work, I constantly strive to conform to norms.
At work, to reach my goals, I am concerned with making mistakes.
Broad/Narrow Attention Measurements
I find it difficult to stay focused on what’s happening in the present.
It seems I am “running on automatic” without much awareness of what I’m doing. I rush through activities without being really attentive to them.
I do jobs or tasks automatically, without being aware of what I’m doing.
When I need to concentrate and solve a problem, I have trouble focusing my attention.
When concentrating, I can focus my attention so that I become unaware of what’s going on in the room around me.
I can quickly switch from one task to another. Problem Recognition Measurements
