Testing the effectiveness of specific interventions to enhance performance on a promotion orientated task

(1)

Testing the effectiveness of specific interventions to enhance performance on a promotion orientated task

University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business

MSc Human Resource Management

5 June 2016

(2)

Abstract

In an experimental study it was examined whether specific interventions could enhance individuals’ motivation and performance on a task with regulatory characteristics that differed from their own. In the study the individuals’ regulatory orientation was taken as a reference point and the intervention consisted out of a tailored message that fitted the task accordingly. I predicted that when a promotion task is presented in line with individual’s regulatory preferences, participants will perform better and have higher motivational level than when the task is not in line with individual’s regulatory preferences. I focused on a promotion task because it is often linked to effective leadership. So, when employees show their ability to use this style even when it is not their preferred style of working, they not only demonstrate that they are able to change their dominant work strategy, they also signal that they may have leadership abilities. Therefore, when employees are helped to perform better on a promotion task, this will benefit them and an organization overall. Furthermore it was examined whether a leader would positively influence individuals’ task performance when tailored messaging about performance incentives are used which does not fit their regulatory preferences. I predicted that transformational leaders with their optimistic view on the future would stimulate individuals to demonstrate preferred regulatory behavior and that this therefore might have a positive influence on the regulatory fit that individuals experience. Increased fit would therefore lead to higher motivation and performance levels. I did not find any support for my hypotheses and none of them could be confirmed. However, I did find support for existing literature and I found an surprising effect of leader messengers on prevention orientated individuals that have to perform an promotion task. In the present study, leadership seems to help adjust individuals to change their way of working to a task, regardless of their performance.

(3)

Introduction

In today’s fast-paced and ever changing world, employees are increasingly involved with different tasks. Take, for example, Media Markt which is a retail brand of Media-Saturn Holding and has been expanding internationally in recent years. They aim to become a true multichannel retailer and are currently integrating online retailing to an increasing extent (Media-Saturn Netherlands, 2015). Expanding companies’ operations can result in employees to be confronted with many different tasks. Yet employees are used to having their own work preferences. This raises the question whether individuals could benefit from adjusting their ways of working to a particular task’s required working goal instead of sticking to their own work preferences. I aim to study whether this can result in better performance on promotion oriented tasks.

(4)

non-fit tasks should not fall behind or negatively influence employees’ overall job performance (Ambrose, Arnaud, & Schminke, 2008; Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005).

A great deal of previous research demonstrated that regulatory fit can be established (and enhances performance) when the task is adjusted to the individual’s preferences. This means that employees are more motivated on tasks that are framed in such ways that it fits the individuals focus even though they are actually opposite in nature (Freitas & Higgins, 2002; Higgins, 2000). The possibility to adjust the individual’s regulatory preferences to the required task regulatory goals has received far less attention. Yet as employees more

increasingly get involved in various tasks, it is questionable that employees benefit the most from this ‘classic’ approach. Perhaps one might also say that adjusting the individual’s regulatory orientations to the wide range of tasks they are currently required to perform may be most suitable for guaranteeing their performance and motivation in the long run. In this study I therefore challenge prior that seems restricted by a one-sided view on how to create regulatory fit. I test the assumption that there are other possibilities that rely on individuals’ abilities to change themselves. Therefore, I attempt to provide organizations with concrete suggestions on how they can learn their employees to change their behavior and personal preferences to today’s fast changing circumstances and varying tasks.

(5)

Recently, Beudeker, Ellemers, Rink & Blonk (2015) have challenged the widely held view that regulatory fit can be established (and enhances performance) when the task is adjusted to the individual’s preferences. This present study can be seen as future research on the topic introduced by Beudeker et al. The authors tried to find evidence for the possibility to adjust the individual’s regulatory preferences to the required task regulatory goals, but the results remained inconclusive for promotion focused tasks. Beudeker et al (2015) have not been able to fully explain why they could not find conclusive results. One question that needs to be asked, however, is whether the possibility to adjust the individual’s regulatory

preferences to the required task regulatory goals is more effective under specific

circumstances. It has commonly been assumed that transformational leadership involves behaviors that encourage employees to take a different view on how they do their work and that challenge them to try out new approaches (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman & Fetter, 1990). So perhaps a transformational leader could influence the effectiveness of this

intervention. In other words, the type of leader who is intervening may be a decisive factor that can influence effectiveness of adjusting the individual’s regulatory preferences to the required task regulatory goals.

(6)

Theory and hypotheses

Regulatory focus and regulatory fit

The distinction between self-regulation with a promotion focus (accomplishments and aspirations) and self-regulation with a prevention focus (safety and responsibilities) is called regulatory focus (Higgins, 1997). Research indicates that individuals have a moderately stable regulatory preference for one of these orientations in their work (Brockner & Higgins, 1997). Higgins (1997) proposes that the individual wants to fulfill safety and security needs when the prevention orientation is activated. Beudeker et al (2015) state that “prevention oriented people tend to work in a structured and orderly manner and avoid taking risks” (p. 4) (Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Seibt & Förster, 2004). In contrast, when the promotion orientation is activated, individuals seek to satisfy nurturance and achievement needs (Higgins, 1997). Beudeker et al (2015) state that “A promotion orientation translates into a way of working characterized by eagerness, risk taking and (as a consequence) less accuracy” (p. 5) (Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Förster, Higgins, & Taylor-Bianco, 2003).

(7)

generally insuring safety, being responsible and meeting obligations (Higgins 1997) tend to experience fit when they need to execute prevention orientated tasks , and hence also perform well on such tasks (Higgins, 1997).

Beudeker et al (2015) show that what we know about such fit is largely based upon empirical studies that investigate how fit can be established by taking people’s regulatory orientation as a reference point and fitting the task accordingly. Individuals are told what can be avoided by performing well on a task when they have a prevention orientation. Similarly, individuals with a promotion orientation are told what can be gained by performing well on a task. Such framing leads to ‘fit’ since it is in line with characteristics of individuals’ personal regulatory focus (Higgins, 1997). Shah et all. (1998), for example, showed that individuals performed better on a task when the strategic nature of the means for attaining the goal is compatible with individuals’ regulatory focus. Shah et all. (1998) therefore suggest such ‘fit’ enhances motivation and performance.

Regulatory tasks from the individual perspective

Within organizations, work consists of many differentiated tasks which goals can be distinguished as prevention tasks and promotion tasks. As Shah et al (1998) have suggested there can be a natural fit when the strategic nature of the means for attaining the goal is compatible with individuals’ regulatory focus. Some jobs primarily exist of tasks with promotion or prevention orientated goals. Employees are able to recognize these task goals and can distinguish them. According to their recognition of these tasks they can categorize jobs with primary promotion orientated task goals and jobs with primary prevention orientated task goals. These jobs can be defined as “star” and “guardian” jobs (Van Dijk & Kluger, 2011; Beudeker et al., 2014; Jacobs, 1981).

(8)

al., 2014). This means that strategic nature of the means for attaining the goal is not always in line with individuals’ regulatory focus. When individuals are allowed to adopt a differentiated work style that fits their regulatory orientation they reported greater motivation to attain their goals (Freitas & Higgins, 2002; Higgins, 2000).

To create a regulatory fit, Higgins & Shah and Friedman (1998) suggest tailored messaging can be used. Tailored messaging about performance incentives can help a prevention oriented individual to perform on a promotion task. It will give the task a twist in favor of an individuals’ preferred regulatory orientation. With the use of tailored messaging a prevention oriented individual is informed about what can be avoided by performing well on a promotion task. Use of tailored messaging is suggested to work the same way for promotion oriented individuals performing a prevention task by informing them about what can be gained by performing well this prevention task. With the use of this kind of tailored messaging a task is presented in line with individual’s regulatory preferences in an attempt to create regulatory fit. Based on the above literature I posit that:

Hypothesis 1: When a promotion task is presented in line with individual’s regulatory preferences, they will perform better than when the task is not in line with individual’s regulatory preferences.

(9)

Leadership and regulatory fit

When managing others, leaders in particular can influence the behavior of their followers. According to Bass (1981, 1985, 1997), transformational leadership involves encouraging others to develop and perform beyond standard expectations. Moreover, transformational leaders are seen as leaders that inspire followers by their optimistic view on the future. They project an idealized vision, and communicating that the vision is achievable.

When individuals with a promotion orientation demonstrate a characteristic of a promotion orientated way of working, like eagerness, they experience regulatory fit (e.g., Cesario, Grant, & Hiuggins, 2004 Freitas & Higgins, 2002 Vaughn, Malik, Schwartz, Petrova, & Trudeau, 2006). In contrast, when an employee with a prevention orientation demonstrate a characteristic of a prevention orientated way of working, like vigilance, they will experience regulatory fit. This affective experience promotes persistence and satisfaction (Higgins, Idson, Freitas, Spiegel, & Molden, 2003). Therefore, when a transformational leader inspires

employees by their optimistic view on the future, stimulates them to demonstrate eagerness or vigilance, and communicates an achievable idealized vision, this might have a positive

influence on the regulatory fit that individuals experience and therefore lead to higher

(10)

Bruce 1994). Therefore, for an organization it is of importance that employees perform well on promotion tasks. Research shows that transformational leadership is positively related to employee creativity (Eisenbeiss et al. 2008; Wu et al. 2008; Zhang et al. 2011). Moreover, Podsakoff et al (1990) state that “transformational leadership involves behaviors that encourage employees to take a different view on how they do their work and that challenge them to try out new approaches”. This is of particular interest in the present study because it might be beneficial for prevention orientated employees to be helped on a promotion task to show what they have to offer. As I mentioned before, promotion focus is often linked to effective leadership. So, when employees show their ability to use this style even when it is not their preferred style of working, they not only demonstrate that they are able to change their dominant work strategy, they also signal that they may have leadership abilities.

Therefore, when employees are helped to perform better on a promotion task, this will benefit them and an organization overall.

Based on the literature above I posit that:

(11)

Methodology Design and participants

In the present study I used a two by two by three design. Independent variables were

individual regulatory focus (promotion vs prevention), performance incentive (promotion vs prevention) and messenger (neutral vs leader vs transformational leader). Dependent variables were task performance, motivation, self-reported performance and self-efficacy. I excluded a total of two hundred and two participants who failed to indicate the right messenger of the manipulation they received (see below).

(12)

Procedure

Participants were informed that the purpose of the study was to gain insight in people’s habits and work strategies. They were first briefed on the purpose of the research and then given consent forms containing the terms of participation and instructions. Participation was anonymous and confidential.

The set-up for the studies is based on a study conducted by Beudeker et al (2015). Participants first had to answer a series of questions to asses participants’ regulatory

orientation. After assessing participants’ regulatory orientation, a filler task was introduced in which they had to describe how they commuted to work or college that day. The purpose of this filler task was to eliminate the possibility that the Regulatory Focus Questionnaire would prime a specific focus. Thereafter, participants had to do the actual promotion task. They had to imagine they were the owners of a new franchise store in electronic household products. They were asked to come up with as many ways as possible to make their franchise known to the public. Questions to assess task commitment, self- efficacy and in role performance were presented. Manipulation checks were implemented at the end of the study to assure that participants had understood the manipulations.

Individual Regulatory focus

(13)

item (promotion: “Compared to most people, are you typically unable to get what you want out of life” and prevention: “Not being careful enough has gotten me into trouble at times”), the scale constructs were sufficiently reliable (Cronbach’s alpha for promotion orientation was α = .78; prevention orientation α = .85). In order to determine participants’ dominant regulatory focus, I subtracted each participants’ mean score on the prevention scales from their mean scores on the promotion scales, based on literature by Zaal, Van Laar, Stahl, Ellemers & Derks (2011). This therefore led to a positive score (more dominant promotion orientation) or a negative score (more dominant prevention orientation).

Manipulation of performance incentive

Participants were randomly assigned to either a promotion or prevention performance

incentive for a promotion focused task. They received a bogus article about either using or not using an original promotional campaign. The promotion manipulation subsequently stated:

“London Business School has studied the effectiveness of advertising for new businesses. In this large-scale study (500 start-up companies participated) companies with and without an advertising campaign were compared. When starting a company an

advertising campaign appears to be very important. The results show that for companies with an advertising campaign the turnover increased by 75% in the opening year. This is partly due to the increased numbers of customers that visited the stores. These customers spent, on average, more than customers of the companies that did not advertise. In short, an

advertising campaign will help you to make more profit with your company and thereby become very successful.”

The prevention manipulation stated:

(14)

and without an advertising campaign were compared. When starting a company an

advertising campaign appears to be very important. The results show that for companies that did not have an advertising campaign made up to 75% less turnover. This is partly due to less customers visiting the stores. On average, customers spent less than customers of advertising companies. In short, an advertising campaign will help you prevent your company from potential profit losses and therefore will help circumvent failure.”

For this study it was important that both the promotion and prevention incentive were equally convincing to participants. In order to check this, I adapted a six item scale developed by Updegraff et al. (2007) and tested it with a one-way ANOVA. Example items from the scale are: “the article is important to me”, “the article convinces me” and “the article is clear”. The two incentive messages can both be considered convincing to participants (Maverage = 4.88, SD = 1.04, F (1,187) = .17, p = .68). In order to check whether participants correctly remembered which incentive they had received I performed a one-way ANOVAs on the mean score of the four following statements designed by Beudeker et al (2015); (1)

London Business School's research focuses on the potential benefits of an advertising

campaign”; (2) “London Business School's research focuses on the potential disadvantages / cost if there is no advertising campaign”; (3) “The purpose of the article is to achieve that you make a lot of profit.” and (4) “The purpose of the article is to prevent that you do not make enough profit.”.

(15)

remembered which incentive they had received (F (1,187) = 36.86 p < .001, Promotion M= 5.04, SD = 1.02 and prevention M = 4.16, SD = 0.98). However, Cronbach’s alpha for the items was α= .465. These results therefore need to be interpreted with caution.

Manipulation of Messenger manipulation

In addition to the performance incentive, participants were randomly assigned to a messenger manipulation. Leaders are known to be in possession of different forms of power. For

example, they are in control of employee rewards, possess special knowledge about the best way to do something or they can be in control of punishments which they employee wants to avoid (Yukl, 2010). People are expected to react differently to a leader in general. Therefore, in addition to a transformational leader messenger I also included a neutral and leader

messenger in order to test the unique effect of a transformational leader. The neutral manipulation stated: “The franchisor provided you with an information package which includes, among other things, the following article:”. The leader manipulation stated: “You have to justify your franchise’s performance and your resources are controlled by the head of the franchisor’s management team. This leader provided you with the following article:”. The transformational leader manipulation stated: “You have to justify your franchise performance to, and your resources are controlled by, the head of the franchisor’s management team. This leader is known for setting realistic and achievable goals for the franchise holders, for being inspiring and having a vision and for making the franchise holders feel that they are all part of a larger organization. The head of the franchisor’s management team provides you with the following article:”

(16)

Measures

The promotion task was a reproduced variation of the established “brick” creativity task (Guilford, 1950) based on the study of Beudeker et al (2015). It can be seen as a

promotion task because making a mistake on this task does not have immediate consequences for the restaurant, whilst a good performance (developing an outstandingly engaging

promotional campaign) could potentially enhance publicity and revenues to a great extent (Jacobs, 1981). Moreover, the task can be considered promotional because it requires eagerness, creativity and open mindedness (Van Dijk & Kluger, 2011). In order to measure objective task performance on the task, the distinct number of ideas that participants

generated were counted and the quality of the ideas was assessed. This was done by rating the ideas on originality and feasibility by two trained raters. These two raters were blind to the conditions and rated the ideas according to a coding procedure developed by Rietzschel, Nijstad and Stroebe (2010). They rated the ideas on ‘originality’ and ‘feasibility’ (on a five-point scale ranging from 1 = not at all original / feasible, to 5 = very original / feasible). The Intra Class Correlations between the raters was high (ICC2 = .79 for originality, and .87 for feasibility). This was shown by a two-way random model with consistency definition (ICC2).

Task commitment was assessed with four items adapted from the organizational commitment questionnaire (Porter, Steers, Mowday & Boulian, 1974). The items were slightly altered to address the task (e.g. “I was motivated to perform at my best at this task”, Cronbach’s alpha α =.80). The statements had to be answered on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree).

(17)

perform well on this task”, Cronbach’s alpha α =.93). The statements had to be answered on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree).

In order to assess self-efficacy, participants had to answer four items (e.g. “I was able to perform this task”, Cronbach’s alpha α = .64) on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree).

Results

For all the dependent variables I conducted a four step hierarchical linear regression. In step one, I controlled for age since literature revealed that individuals age might influence related aspects of psychological function and therefore influence their regulatory orientation (Freund & Ebner, 2005). Individual regulatory orientation, the regulatory intervention manipulation and the messenger manipulation were entered at step two. In step three, two-way interactions between individual regulatory orientation x regulatory intervention manipulation, individual regulatory orientation x messenger manipulation and regulatory intervention manipulation x messenger manipulation were entered. Finally, in step four, the three-way interaction between the predictors was entered.

Objective task performance

The distinct number of ideas, the originality of ideas and the feasibility of ideas were measured as objective task performance.

First, the hierarchical linear regression (including 4 steps mentioned above) with number of distinct ideas as dependent variable revealed that at step one, age marginally significantly contributed to the regression model, F (1,185) = 2.82, p = .095 and accounted for 1.5% in the variation in number of distinct ideas. Step two, three and four did not show significant

(18)

and the messenger manipulation which marginally significantly predicted the number of distinct ideas in step three (β = .35, t (172) = 1.94, p = .054). See table 1 for an overview of all results. Figure 1 indicates that there is a main effect of the leader messenger, such that a neutral leader leads to more distinct ideas than a transformational leader. In addition, there is a main effect of regulatory orientation, such that prevention orientation leads to more distinct ideas than promotion orientation. However, the slopes also indicate that there was a greater difference in predicting distinct ideas between the neutral leader manipulation and the more transformational leader manipulation for participants with a prevention orientation than there was for participants with a promotion orientation (B = .26, SE B = .13, p = .054).

Second, the hierarchical linear regression with originality of ideas as dependent variable revealed no significant explanations except for, again, the interaction of individual’s regulatory orientation and the messenger manipulation which also marginally significantly predicted the originality of ideas in step three (β = .31, t (172) = 1.68, p = .094). See table 2 for an overview of all results. Figure 2 indicates that there are no main effects. However, the slopes also indicate that under the effect of a more transformational leader manipulation, a more promotion orientation was associated with higher originality whereas under the effect of a more neutral messenger, a more promotion orientation was associated with lower originality of ideas (B = .06, SE B = .036, p = .094).

The hierarchical linear regression with feasibility of ideas as dependent variable revealed no significant explanations at all. See table 3 for an overview of all results.

(19)

Subjective task performance

Self-reported task performance, motivation and self-efficacy are measured as subjective task performance.

The hierarchical linear regression (including 4 steps mentioned before) with self-reported performance as dependent variable revealed that at step one, age significantly contributed to the regression model, F (1,187) = 7,59, p = .006 and accounted for 3.9% in the variation in self-reported performance. Introducing individual regulatory orientation,

regulatory and messenger manipulation in step two explained an additional 3.7% of variation in self-reported performance and this change in R2 was marginally significant, F (3,184) = 2.47, p = .063. Individual regulatory orientation uniquely and significantly predicted self-reported performance in step two (β = .168, t (180) = 2.36, p = .020). Step three and four did not show any statistical significant results. Overall, promotion orientated participants reported a higher self-reported performance than prevention orientated participants. It did not matter whether the regulatory manipulation was in line with their preferred orientation or not. See table 4 for an overview of all results.

(20)

results. Overall, promotion orientated participants reported a higher motivation level than prevention orientated participants. See table 5 for an overview of all results.

The hierarchical linear regression (including 4 steps mentioned before) with self-efficacy as dependent variable revealed that at step one, age significantly contributed to the regression model, F (1,187) = 4,29, p = .04 and accounted for 2.2% in the variation in self-efficacy. Introducing individual regulatory orientation, regulatory and messenger manipulation in step two explained an additional 5.8% of variation in self-efficacy and this change in R2 was significant, F (3,184) = 3.87, p = .01. Individual regulatory orientation uniquely and significantly predicted self-efficacy in step two (β = .231, t (180) = 3.241, p = .001). In step three showed a significant interaction on self-efficacy for the interaction of individual’s regulatory orientation and the messenger manipulation (β = .358, t (174) = 2.03, p = .044). See table 6 for an overview of all results. Figure 3 indicates that there is a main effect of the leader messenger, such that a neutral leader leads to higher self-efficacy than a transformational leader. In addition, there is a main effect of regulatory orientation, such that prevention orientation leads to higher self-efficacy than promotion orientation. However, there was a greater difference in self-efficacy between the neutral leader manipulation and the more transformational leader manipulation for participants with a prevention orientation than there was for participants with a promotion orientation (B = .11, SE B = .054, p < .05).

(21)

performance. Moreover, participants did not report higher self-efficacy no matter whether a promotion task was presented in line with their regulatory preferences or not. At last, the results do not support H3 since I did not find any evidence that a tailored message from a transformational leader positively influences individuals’ task performance when tailored messaging about performance incentives are used which does not fit individuals’ regulatory preferences.

Discussion

In the present study I investigated whether tailored messages can be used to increase motivation and task performance on a promotion task. I proposed that when a promotion task is presented in line with individual’s regulatory preferences, they will have higher motivation and perform better than when the task is not in line with individual’s regulatory preferences. In addition, I investigated whether it would be helpful if these tailored messages would be introduced by a leader. I proposed that a tailored message from a leader would positively influence individuals’ task performance when tailored messaging about performance incentives are used which does not fit their regulatory preferences. Taken together, the results do not provide evidence for any of my hypothesis.

(22)

proposed enhancement of employees’ motivation and performance might simply not be the answer to the question.

Existing literature on regulatory fit states that regulatory fit generally results in better task performance and higher individual’s motivation (Higgins, Shah & Friedman, 1998; Friedman & Förster, 2001; Seibt & Förster, 2004). This is of great importance because it provides us insight in how to enhance motivation and task performance on tasks that fit employees’ regulatory orientation. Based on the literature, it was expected that participants with a promotion orientation probably would perform better overall and probably would report higher motivation level on a promotion task. The results contribute to existing literature because I did find higher self-reported performance and motivation level for participants with a promotion orientation. Even though I did not find this effect for objective task performance, I showed that regulatory fit in general has proven helpful in enhancing motivation and

performance.

Limitations

(23)

feature of a promotion orientated task. Therefore, the task probably has not been able to instruct participants to engage in the preferred creative behavior.

Future research

In the present study I focused on regulatory fit on an individual level. This is in line with prior research and mainly based the most extensive research on regulatory fit by Higgins. It is accepted that when individuals pursue goals that fit with their regulatory orientation, they achieve regulatory fit. However, would the present study have the same outcome when the proposed hypothesis in the present study would be addressing overall team performance? Dimotakis, Davison & Hollenbeck (2012) show a positive influence of regulatory fit on team level. It has also been shown that when individuals of the team are allowed to take the role that fits with their regulatory orientation, the overall relationship satisfaction increases. This can have a positive influence on team performance levels (Anik, Aknin, Norton, Dunn, & Quoidbach, 2013). In future research it could therefore be particular interesting to investigate my proposed hypotheses in a team context. Perhaps tailored messages that are presented in line with individual’s regulatory preferences when the task is not in line with individual’s regulatory preferences. Therefore, an employee might demonstrate required team behavior that therefore will result in better team performance.

(24)

success. So perhaps more specific interventions that influence individuals’ motivation might benefit from the suggested assumption. Interventions that stimulate motivation aspects, like a focus on involvement, commitment, passion and empowering might therefore lead to an engaged employed which demonstrates these feelings on a work task (Mone and London, 2010). Gallup (2013) states that engagement is a powerful tool in increasing productivity. Therefore, when a task orientation is not in line with their regulatory orientation it might be beneficial to ensure personal engagement. Because in these situations, personal disengagement might occur in which individuals uncouple themselves from work roles. This should be avoided; therefore the interventions should focus on creating personal engagement. Task performance could improve to a great extent because in contrast to personal disengagement, personal engaged people harness their selves physically, cognitively and emotionally to the work roles, by employing and expressing themselves at work (Kahn, 1990). This might also prove beneficial for earlier investigated interventions by Beudeker, et al. (2014) that instructs participants to adapts a certain work strategy. So, increasing motivation level by only increasing individuals’ regulatory fit might not be enough. Perhaps, individuals need an extra motivational intervention that greatly influences motivation and together either a performance or work strategy or another intervention might lead to greater performance on a task that does not fit individuals’ regulatory orientation. Further research on this subject might reveal evidence for the effectiveness motivational interventions.

(25)

tailored messaging of a leader messenger does not positively influences task performance. It did not lead to higher performance independent of the leader messenger. Surprisingly, I found that for prevention orientated participants it did matter who provided them with the information about the promotion task. It shows that when a neutral leader provided the information, prevention orientated participants were more willing to put effort in the task. So perhaps individuals might benefit more from leaders that are seen more as equal to them because it will create a certain fit with the leader. For prevention orientated individual, transformational leadership might not always be the best way to their way of working to a task and these individuals might actually benefit from a leader that is more like them. A possible explanation might be that prevention orientated individuals not feel that a transformational leader understand how they work, and therefore they might find it hard to change their way of working accordingly. In contrast, when a leader is more like them and they feel that a leader knows how they work, it might be easier to them to adjust their way of working accordingly. Leadership seems to help adjust individuals to change their way of working to a task, regardless of their performance. In the present study I focused on the assumption that transformational leadership in particular would be most beneficial for individuals to change their way of working. However, for future research it might prove worthwhile to investigate to when which type of leadership is the most effective for different individuals. A leader that is similar might prove to be more effective in making people change than a leader that is different.

Practical implications and conclusion

(26)

(27)

References

Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 123–167.

Ambrose, M. L., Arnaud, A., & Schminke, M. (2008). Individual moral development and ethical climate: The inﬂuence of person-organization ﬁt on job attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics, 77, 323–333.

Anik, L., Aknin, L. B., Norton, M. I., Dunn, E. W., & Quoidbach, J. (2013). Prosocial bonuses increase employee satisfaction and team performance.

Bass, B. M. (1981). Stogdill’s handbook of leadership. New York: Macmillan.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1997). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. In R. P. Vecchio (Ed.), Leadership: Understanding the dynamics of power and influence in organizations (pp. 318–333). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership: A response to critiques. In M. M. Chemmers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 49–88). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

(28)

Beudeker, D.A., Ellemers, N., Rink, F.A., Dorenbosch, L., de Rooij, M., & Blonk, R.W.B. (2014). Perceptions of Regulatory Task Heterogeneity and their relationship with employees’ self-reported innovative work behavior, task clarity and need for recovery.

Beudeker, D.A., Ellemers, N., Rink, F.A. & Blonk, R.W.B. (2014). Testing the effectiveness of manipulations to enhance performance on regulatory oriented tasks.

Brockner J., & Higgins E.T. (1997). Regulatory focus theory: Implications for the study of emotions at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 35– 66.

Cesario, J., Grant, H., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). Regulatory fit and persuasion: Transfer from feeling right". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 388-404.

Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69, 117–132.

Dimotakis, N., Davison, R. B., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (2012). Team structure and regulatory focus: The impact of regulatory fit on team dynamic. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 421–434.

Eisenbeiss, S. A., van Knippenberg, D., & Boerner, S. (2008). Transformational leadership and team innovation: Integrating team climate principles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1438–1446.

Emerald, (2015). Survival in fast-changing markets. Strategic Direction, 31(1), 18–20.

(29)

Faddegon, K., Ellemers, N., & Scheepers, D. (2009). Eager to be the Best, or Vigilant Not to Be the Worst: The Emergence of Regulatory Focus in Disjunctive and Conjunctive Group Tasks. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 12, 653-671.

Förster, J., Higgins, E.T., & Bianco A.T. (2003). Speed/accuracy decisions in task performance: Built in trade-off or separate strategic concerns. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90, 148–164.

Freitas, A. L., & Higgins, E. T. (2002). Enjoying goal-directed action: The role of regulatory fit. Psychological Science, 13, 1-6.

Freund, A. M., & Ebner, N. C. (2005). The aging self: Shifting from promoting gains to balancing losses. In W. Greve, K. Rothermund & D. Wentura (Eds.), The adaptive self: Personal continuity and intentional self-development (pp. 185-202). Ashland, OH: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.

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

Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280-1300.

Higgins, E. T. (2000). Making a good decision: Value from fit. American Psychologist, 55, 1217-1230.

Higgins, E. T., Friedman, R. S., Harlow, R. E., Idson, L. C., Ayduk, O. N., & Taylor, A. (2001). Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus prevention pride. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 3-23.

(30)

Higgins, E. T., Kruglanski, A. W., & Pierro, A. (2003). Regulatory mode: Locomotion and assessment as distinct orientations. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 293–344). New York: Academic Press.

Higgins, E. T., Shah, J. Y., & Friedman, R. (1998). Emotional responses to goal attainment: Strength of regulatory focus as moderator. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 515–525.

Howell, J. M., & Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers in the charismatic leadership process: Relationships and their consequences. Academy of Management Review, 30, 96–112.

Kahn, W.A., (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724.

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.

Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ ﬁt at work: A meta-analysis of job, organization, person-group, and person-supervisor ﬁt. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281–342.

Kruglanski, A. W., Thompson, E. P., Higgins, E. T., Atash, M. N., Pierro, A., Shah, J. Y., & Spiegel, S. (2000). To “do the right thing” or to “just do it”: Locomotion and assessment as distinct self-regulatory imperatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 793–815.

(31)

Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607–634.

Media-Saturn Netherlands, 2015. Retrieved from: http:// media-saturn.com/sites/nl/EN/Pages/Default.aspx

Mone, E. M., & London, M. (2010). Employee engagement through effective performance management: A practical guide for managers. New York: Routledge

Neubert, M.J., Carlson, D.S., Kacmar, M.K., Chonko, L.B., & Roberts, J.A. (2008). Regulatory focus as a mediator of the influence of initiating structure and servant leadership on employee behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93,1220-1233.

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, 107–142.

Sassenberg, K., Jonas, K.J., Shah, J.Y. & Brazy, P.C. (2007). Why some groups just feel better: the regulatory fit of group power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 249-267.

Scott, S.G.,& Bruce, R.A.(1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 580–607.

Seibt, B., & Förster, J. (2004). Stereotype threat and performance: How self-stereotypes influence processing by inducing regulatory foci. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 38–56.

(32)

Updegraff, J. A., Sherman, D. K., Luyster, F. S., & Mann, T. L. (2007). The effects of message quality and congruency on perceptions of tailored health communications. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 249-257.

Vaughn, L. A., Malik, J., Schwartz, S., Petkova, Z., & Trudeau, L. (2006). Regulatory fit as input for stop rules. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 601-611.

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

Yukl, G., (2010). Leadership in organizations. (7th_{ed.). Pearson}

Zhang, X. M., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The inﬂuence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 107–128

(33)

Appendix

Table 1 Dependent variable: number of distinct ideas

(34)

(35)

(36)

(37)

(38)

(39)

(40)

(41)

(42)

(43)

(44)

(45)

(46)

(47)

(48)

(49)

(50)

(51)

Figure 1 Interaction plot distinct ideas

(52)

Figure 3 Interaction plot self-efficacy

Regulatory focus

1. Compared to most people, are you typically unable to get what you want out of life? 2. Growing up, would you ever “cross the line” by doing things that your parents would

not tolerate?

3. How often have you accomplished things that got you “psyched” to work even harder? 4. Did you get on your parents’ nerves often when you were growing up?

5. How often did you obey rules and regulations that were established by your parents? 6. Growing up, did you ever act in ways that your parents thought were objectionable? 7. Do you often do well at different things that you try?

8. Did you get on your parents’ nerves often when you were growing up? 9. Not being careful enough has gotten me into trouble at times.

10. Statement: “When it comes to achieving things that are important to me, I find that I don’t perform as well as I ideally would like to do.”

(53)

11. Statement: ” I feel like I have made progress toward being successful in my life.” 12. Statement: “I have found very few hobbies or activities in my life that capture my

interest or motivate me to put effort into them.”

Task evaluation

1. I have put energy in this task

2. I was motivated to perform well on this task

3. I felt like it was important to perform well on this task 4. I have put effort in this task

Self-efficacy

1. I think I was able to perform this task

2. Other people would have performed better on this task (reverse coded) 3. I question my skills to perform this task (reverse coded)

4. I am proud of my skills to perform this task

Self reported performance

1. I achieved the purpose of this task

2. I meet the required performance on this task 3. I think I have done well on this task

Questions about originality/ feasibility of the ideas

(54)

2. I thought it was especially important that my ideas for the advertisement campaign were of good quality.

3. I thought it was especially important that my ideas for the advertisement campaign were feasible.

4. I thought it was especially important that my ideas for the advertisement campaign were unique

5. I thought it was important that my ideas for the advertisement campaign were well thought-out.

6. I thought it was important that my ideas for the advertisement campaign were logical 7. I thought it was important that I wrote down the first ideas that came to me

8. I thought it was important that my ideas for the advertisement campaign have never been used before.

Strategies

1. Strive for certainty vs strive for succes 2. Try things out vs Follow fixed rules

3. Thoroughly think trough vs Follow first impression 4. Focus on my ideals vs Focus on my obligations 5. Strive for highest achievable vs Do what I should do 6. Try to succeed vs Not fail in any case

(55)

Manipulation checks

1. London Business School's research focuses on the potential benefits of an advertising campaign

2. London Business School's research focuses on the potential disadvantages / cost if there is no advertising campaign

3. The purpose of the article is to achieve that you make a lot of profit.

4. The purpose of the article is to prevent that you do not make enough profit. 5. Who asked you to come up with ideas of an advertisement campaign? - The franchisor provided the article and asked to come up with ideas.

- A leader from the franchisor management team provided the article and asked to come up with ideas.

- A leader who is known for setting realistic and achievable goals for the franchise holders, for being inspiring and having a vision and for making the franchise holders feel that they are all part of a larger organization provided the article and asked to come up with ideas.

6. The article convinces me 7. The article is clear

8. The article is important to me 9. The article is accurate

10. The article is memorable 11. The article is useful to me

(56)

Manipulations Promotion neutral:

You are about to open a new franchise in electronic household products.

The franchisor provided you with an information package which includes, among other things, the following article:

London Business School has studied the effectiveness of advertising for new

businesses. In this large-scale study (500 start-up companies participated) companies with and without an advertising campaign were compared. When starting a company an advertising campaign appears to be very important. The results show that for

companies with an advertising campaign the turnover increased by 75% in the opening year. This is partly due to the increased numbers of customers that visited the stores. These customers spent, on average, more than customers of the companies that did not advertise.

In short, an advertising campaign will help you to make more profit with your company and thereby become very successful.

Promotion leader:

(57)

You have to justify your franchise’s performance and your resources are controlled by the head of the franchisor’s management team. This leader provided you with the following article:

In short, an advertising campaign will help you to make more profit with your company and thereby become very successful. The leader therefore believes that an advertisement

campaign will make your franchise more successful.

Promotion transformational leader:

(58)

The head of the franchisor’s management team provides you with the following article:

In short, an advertising campaign will help you to make more profit with your company and thereby become very successful. The leader therefore believes that an advertisement

campaign will make your franchise more successful.

Prevention neutral:

The franchisor provided you with an information package which includes, among other things, the following article:

London Business School has studied the effectiveness of advertising for new

(59)

advertising campaign appears to be very important. The results show that for

companies that did not have an advertising campaign made up to 75% less turnover. This is partly due to less customers visiting the stores. On average, customers spent less than customers of advertising companies

In short, an advertising campaign will help you prevent your company from potential profit losses and therefore will help circumvent failure.

Prevention leader:

You have to justify your franchise performance to, and your resources are controlled by, the head of the franchisor’s management team. This leader provided you with the following article:

(60)

Prevention transformational leader:

You have to justify your franchise performance to, and your resources are controlled by, the head of the franchisor’s management team. This leader is known for setting realistic and achievable goals for the franchise holders, for being inspiring and having a vision and for making the franchise holders feel that they are all part of a larger organization.

The head of the franchisor’s management team provides you with the following article: