FOLLOWERS’ WORK REGULATORY FOCUS ON THEIR PREFERENCES FOR TRANSFORMATIONAL AND TRANSACTIONAL LEADERSHIP
Master thesis, MSc Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
January 20, 2019 DANIQUE SENTKER Student number: s2297876 Billitonstraat 30a 9715 ET Groningen Phone: +31655504002
What makes followers favour their leader? The effect of followers’ work regulatory focus on their preferences for transformational and transactional leadership
ABSTRACT
Although leadership is the process by which leaders influence their followers toward goal attainment (e.g., House, 1971), previous follower-centric leadership studies have overlooked the role of follower goal-striving behaviour in determining their leadership preferences. Promotion-focused individuals favour a strategy of pursuing desirable outcomes; prevention-focused individuals prefer pursuing a strategy of avoiding undesirable outcomes. It is hypothesized that follower chronic regulatory focus moderates the indirect relationship between organizational climate (innovative versus safety) and follower leadership style preference (transformational versus transactional) through follower work regulatory focus. 142 Dutch respondents who work under the supervision of a leader participated in this study. Contrary to expectations, results show that both work promotion and work prevention focus are significantly and positively associated with follower preferences for transactional leadership. Moreover, results indicate that safety organizational climate elicits a work prevention focus. As such, work prevention focus mediates the indirect relationship between safety organizational climate and follower preferences for transactional leadership. A final moderated-mediation analysis shows there were no moderator effects for chronic regulatory focus. The findings imply that followers prefer transactional leaders as they encourage goal-pursuit behaviour that, in one way or another, fits with how followers pursue goals. In contrast, transformational leaders set less clear behavioural guidelines, which might explain why work promotion focus is not related to follower preferences for transformational leadership. Methodological limitations are discussed and suggestions for future research are provided.
Keywords
INTRODUCTION
The last couple of decades, leadership research has focused predominantly on successful and unsuccessful leadership characteristics, of which trait and behavioural theories of leadership are among the most well-known (e.g., Derue, Nahrgang, Wellman, & Humphrey, 2011). Nonetheless, even if a leader has the ‘right’ traits and acts according to the prescriptions of behavioural theories of leadership, there are always followers who consider their superordinate’s leadership style to be unpleasant. In other words, “the same leader arouses extreme admiration by some people and extreme hatred by other” (Yukl, 2013: 310). Indeed, Yammarino, Dubinsky, Corner, and Jolson (1997) found significant individual differences with respect to followers’ satisfaction with the same leader.
Leader-centric leadership theories fail to explain differences in perceived leadership style likeability among followers. Consequently, there is a growing body of research that takes a follower perspective, which demonstrates that follower traits relate to follower perceptions of (e.g., Felfe & Schyns, 2006, 2010; Hetland, Sandal, & Johnsen, 2008; Schyns & Felfe, 2006; Schyns & Sanders, 2007) or follower preferences for specific types of leadership styles (Thoroughgood & Sawyer, 2018), and how value congruence between followers and leaders can increase follower satisfaction with one’s leader (Meglino, Ravlin, & Adkins, 1991). These follower-centric leadership studies seem to suggest that people prefer leaders who are similar to them (Ehrhart & Klein, 2001).
Crowe, & Hymes, 1994). A person with a promotion focus strives for ideals through accomplishments and advancements, thereby using an eagerness strategy intended to lead to desired end-states. On the other hand, a person with a prevention focus is concerned with fulfilling obligations, responsibilities, and duties through the use of a vigilance strategy that prevents a person from mismatches to desired end-states. The present study examines how follower goal pursuit in terms of promotion and prevention focus might influence follower preferences regarding leadership styles, specifically preferences for transformational leadership – defined as transcending follower self-interests into collective interests – and transactional leadership – defined as exchanging contingent rewards for performance. Rather than assuming a one best way leadership style, this well-known leadership theory formulated by Bass (1985, 1996) points out two distinct paths by which leaders can exert influence over their followers. Although transformational leadership has been considered as generally having the most vital impact on followers, followers who differ in their goal striving behaviours might also differ in their preferences regarding this “most effective form of leadership” (Van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013: 2) and the traditional, exchange-based transactional leadership style.
relationship between safety organizational climate and work prevention focus, leading to stronger follower preferences for transactional leadership.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES
Regulatory Focus
Regulatory focus theory (RFT) distinguishes self-regulation with a promotion focus – by means of which desired end states are approached – from self-regulation with a prevention focus – through which undesired end states are avoided (Higgins, 1997). A promotion focus goes hand in hand with goal striving through self-growth and pursuit of the ideal self. People with this regulatory focus “actively try out numerous behaviours to see what works, [leading to] pleasure when rewarded for and pain when not rewarded for accomplishments, which results in emotional responses associated with cheerfulness and dejection, respectively” (Johnson et al., 2015: 1503). Prevention focus, contrarily, regulates security needs, and, as such, touches upon fulfilling duties and responsibilities. To achieve this, people with a prevention focus engage in vigilant and responsible behaviours. Consequently, “they experience pleasure when there is an absence of negative consequences and experience pain when those negatives are present, resulting in the emotional experience of quiescence and agitation, respectively” (Johnson et al., 2015: 1503). Thus, prevention-focused individuals differ from promotion-focused individuals, as they direct attention to security needs rather than nurturance needs (Higgins et al., 1994), rules and responsibilities rather than hopes and aspirations (Higgins et al., 1994), and losses rather than gains (Shah, Higgins, & Friedman, 1998).
to the self-regulatory tactics that an individual uses dependent on the prevailing situation. As these tactics are a response to the context, they may differ from the individual’s chronic regulatory focus. This indicates that the three motivational abstraction levels are independent (Scholer & Higgins, 2008). Indeed, situational stimuli affect situational regulatory focus, and situational regulatory focus alters when situational stimuli change (Brockner & Higgins, 2001; Forster, Higgins, and Bianco, 2003; Wallace & Chen, 2006). As a result, individuals can have high levels on both foci, low levels on both foci or high levels on one of the foci and low levels on the other focus (Forster et al., 2003).
The above clarifies that, as a consequence of the hierarchical nature of regulatory focus, promotion and prevention focus are two independent dimensions rather than opposite ends of a single spectrum, indicating that they are distinct and orthogonal constructs (Gorman, Meriac, Overstreet, Apodaca, McIntyre, Park, & Godbey, 2012; Higgins, 1997; Lanaj et al., 2012). Regulatory fit theory (Higgins, 2000, 2006) poses that regulatory fit is obtained when chronic regulatory focus at the system level aligns with regulatory focus at the strategic and tactical levels. Spiegel, Grant-Pillow, and Higgins (2004) found that people perform better when task demands and their chronic regulatory focus fit. Relatedly, regulatory fit increases task engagement and persistence (Higgins, 2000). In work situations, this implies that alignment between chronic regulatory focus and work regulatory focus increases employees’ performance and work attitudes (Lanaj et al., 2012).
Work Regulatory Focus and Preferences for Transformational and Transactional Leadership
be attained. Transformational and transactional leaders (Bass, 1985, 1996) convey these messages via different behavioural strategies, which influence follower goal-pursuit strategies (Hamstra, Van Yperen, Wisse, & Sassenberg, 2014). According to Bass (1985), transformational and transactional leadership are distinct, though not mutually exclusive, processes.
Transactional leaders, on the other hand, use behavioural strategies such as monitoring errors, instantiating an exchange process, and setting up rules and agreements to achieve follower compliance with leader requests (Yukl, 2013). Transactional leadership consists of three dimensions, this being contingent reward, active management by exception, and passive management by exception (Bass, 1996). By means of contingent reward behaviour, transactional leaders clarify expectations regarding what accomplishments followers need to achieve in order to receive rewards. Moreover, it includes using incentives to increase followers’ task motivation (Yukl, 2013). Active management by exception is the extent to which transactional leaders take corrective action when they detect mistakes and impose rules to avoid follower mistakes (Howell & Avolio, 1993). Passive management by exception, finally, will not be discussed here nor further accounted for in this study. That is, as followers do not appreciate passive management by exception behaviours (Bogler, Caspi & Roccas, 2013), examining follower preferences for this leadership style type is not useful.
encouraged by their leader led followers to perceive their leader as more effective, which, among others, resulted in enhanced follower task effort (Hamstra et al., 2014).
Transformational leaders communicate long-term, ideal visions, tend to take personal risks, and intellectually stimulate and positively encourage their followers. Consequently, followers are encouraged to think in terms of possibilities rather than impossibilities, they are stimulated to be ambitious, and finally, they are shown not to refrain from risk taking (Hamstra et al., 2014). In contrast, by engaging in behaviour that focuses on contingent rewards and active management by exception, transactional leaders make followers feel that they need to do what is expected of them, that they have responsibilities that they should fulfil, that they should not fail to meet minimal standards, and that accuracy is valued (Hamstra et al., 2014). Thus, it might be argued that these leadership styles encourage different goal-pursuit behaviours, as they elicit behaviour by which standard work performance is either exceeded or conformed, and behaviour by which either positive outcomes are achieved or negative outcomes are avoided. As people tend to prefer leaders who are similar to them, one would expect that promotion-focused followers are likely to be attracted to transformational leaders, whereas prevention-focused followers tend to prefer transactional leaders.
Hypothesis 1a: Work promotion focus positively relates to a preference for transformational leadership.
Hypothesis 1b: Work prevention focus positively relates to a preference for transactional leadership.
Organizational Climate and Regulatory Focus
Organizational climate may be defined as “the shared perceptions of and the meaning attached to the policies, practices, and procedures employees experience and the behaviours they observe getting rewarded and that are supported and expected” (Schneider, Ehrhart, & Macey, 2013: 362). Perceptions of organizational climate start to develop as individuals, based on the significance of the work environment for individual values, ascribe meaning to the organizational context they work in (James, James, & Ashe, 1990). Hence, organizational climate is likely to exert strong influences on employees’ motivation to achieve work outcomes (Brown & Leigh, 1996). Moreover, “[organizational] climate represents signals individuals receive concerning organizational expectations for behaviour and potential outcomes of behaviour” (Scott & Bruce, 1994: 582). Employees respond to these organizational expectations by regulating their behaviour in order to attain goals (Bandura, 1988), indicating that organizational climates are behaviourally oriented (Schneider, 2000).
employees’ opportunity and motivation to act in an innovative manner (Abbey & Dickson, 1983; Kozlowski & Hults, 1987; Paolillo & Brown, 1978, 1979; Scott & Bruce, 1994; Wallace, Butts, Johnson, Stevens & Smith, 2016). As an innovative organizational climate goes along with expected behaviours that are similar to the behaviours elicited by a regulatory promotion focus, such as the orientation toward advancement and the pursuit of new ideas, one would expect that an innovative organizational climate elicits a work promotion focus.
In a similar vein, safety organizational climate, defined as “the perceptions of policies, procedures, and practices relating to safety in the workplace” (Neal & Griffin, 2000: 69), is a predictor of safety compliance behaviour and fewer accidents or injuries (Clarke, 2010; Dedobbeleer & Béland, 1991; Hoffman & Stetzer, 1996; Kuenzi & Schminke, 2009; Varonen & Matilla, 2000; Wallace, Popp, & Mondore, 2006; Zohar, 1980, 2000, 2002). Safety compliance refers to “the core activities that individuals need to carry out to maintain workplace safety” (Neal & Griffin, 2006: 947), which includes, among others, adherence to standard work procedures. Poor safety climate reduces employee compliance with safety compliance, which, in turn, raises the amount of accidents or injuries (Neal & Griffin, 2006). One could suggest that adherence to safety procedures and the avoidance of accidents or injuries evoke a work prevention focus, as employees need to engage in responsible behaviours and should attempt to avoid negative consequences (e.g., accidents or injuries). Indeed, Wallace and Chen (2006) found that safety climate leads to safety behaviour through regulatory prevention focus, and Kuenzi and Schminke (2009) indicated that climate serves as a method for regulating individual employee behaviour to comply with organizational expectations.
the goal-directed behaviour valued as signalled by the organizational climate will affect follower work regulatory focus:
Hypothesis 2a: An innovative organizational climate positively relates to a work promotion focus.
Hypothesis 2b: A safety organizational climate positively relates to a work prevention focus.
Thus, situational stimuli, such as organizational climate, shape work regulatory focus (Wallace & Chen, 2006). However, in addition to situational stimuli, chronic regulatory focus, the dispositional tendency to be promotion or prevention focused, affects work regulatory focus as well (Lanaj et al., 2012). Situational stimuli may elicit a work regulatory focus that either fits one’s chronic regulatory focus or differs from one’s chronic regulatory focus; in other words, the task demands of the organizational climate evoke a work regulatory focus that aligns with the organizational climate irrespective of one’s chronic regulatory focus. However, as regulatory fit between task demands and chronic regulatory focus increases effort in goal pursuit (Johnson et al., 2015; Lanaj et al., 2012), chronic regulatory focus might determine the strength of the effort in work-related goal pursuit that derives from one’s work regulatory focus. This implies that in case of regulatory fit, one would have higher levels of a particular work regulatory focus, and in case of regulatory ‘misfit’, one would have lower levels of a particular work regulatory focus. As such:
Hypothesis 3b: A chronic prevention focus moderates the relationship between safety organizational climate and work prevention focus, such that this relationship is more pronounced when chronic prevention focus is high rather than low.
Consequently, higher (lower) levels of a particular work regulatory focus, as derived from fit (misfit) between the task demands of the organizational climate and one’s chronic regulatory focus, are more (less) likely to affect work-related outcomes, such as attitudes (Lanaj et al., 2012). Therefore, a preference for one of the two leadership styles would be higher (lower) in case of higher (lower) levels of a particular work regulatory focus, as derived from fit (misfit) between the task demands of the organizational climate and one’s chronic regulatory focus. This theorizing gives rise to the final two hypotheses as formulated below. Figure 1 provides a graphical overview of the hypothesized model.
Hypothesis 4a: Chronic promotion focus moderates the indirect relationship between innovative organizational climate and follower preference for transformational leadership through follower work promotion focus, such that this indirect relationship is stronger when chronic promotion focus is high rather than low.
Figure 1: Conceptual model of the proposed relations between organizational climate, chronic regulatory focus, work regulatory focus, and leadership style preference.
METHOD
Respondents and Procedures
A total of 194 respondents fully completed the survey. The results of 142 respondents (Mage
= 33.95, SDage = 12.70, 86.6 % female), who answered all trap questions (e.g., ‘to indicate that
master n = 29) or higher vocational education (n = 48), 32 respondents finished vocational education, and 15 respondents finished high school.
Respondents were recruited via social media groups and personal networks. Therefore, the sampling method relied on the availability of respondents. To be eligible for participation, respondents needed to currently work in an organization or needed to work in an organization in the past, with the requirement that they work(ed) under the supervision of a leader. Respondents either received an anonymous link to an online survey via e-mail or WhatsApp or clicked on the anonymous link presented in Facebook groups. Before respondents were going to fill out the survey, they received information about the study they were about to participate in. Respondents were instructed that the survey was about how both personal and organizational characteristics influence employee preferences regarding leadership styles, that their responses would be treated anonymously, confidentially, and with integrity before, during, and after data analysis, that by fully completing the survey they could win a 20-euro gift voucher (to increase the response rate), and that it would take about ten minutes to complete the survey. Respondents were also provided with an e-mail address to which they could send their questions or remarks. The survey was distributed online, using the programme Qualtrics. To optimize the readability of the items, respondents selected whether they were filling out the survey via their smartphone or PC. All respondents answered the items in the same order. That is, chronic regulatory focus and Big Five control items were measured before organizational climate, work regulatory focus, and leadership style preference were assessed, to prevent the answers on the former measures from being primed by the answers on the latter measures.
Measures
translated items (Brislin, 1984). To assess the appropriateness of the existing measures for the context of this research, the questionnaire was pretested by five respondents (who did not fill out the final questionnaire) in order to check for possible flaws and to ascertain whether the translated items were comprehensive. Through this pre-test it was found that the term ‘organizational climate’ was too broad if one works in a large organization, as the department one works in can have a ‘departmental’ climate that differs from the organizational climate. As a result, it was decided to change the wording into ‘work environment’, which was explained as one’s department or one’s organization as a whole in case of small organizations. After this adjustment and a few minor translation adjustments, the final survey was developed. The survey contained so-called ‘trap questions’ to diminish inattention bias (Hauser & Schwarz, 2015).
Chronic regulatory focus. Chronic regulatory focus was measured by means of the
Regulatory Focus Questionnaire (Lockwood, Jordan & Kunda, 2002), which consists of two subscales with nine items measuring promotion goals (e.g., ‘I often think about the person I would ideally like to be in the future’) and nine items measuring prevention goals (e.g., ‘I often think about the person I am afraid I might become in the future’,). Items were measured on an adjusted 7-point scale ranging from 1 (‘highly inapplicable’) to 9 (‘highly applicable’).
Work regulatory focus. Work regulatory focus was measured by means of the Work
Regulatory Focus (WRF) Scale, developed by Neubert, Kacmar, Carlson, Chonko and Robers (2008). The measure consists of a total of eighteen items, with nine items assessing work promotion focus (e.g., ‘I focus on accomplishing job tasks that will further my advancement’) and nine items assessing work prevention focus (e.g., ‘At work I focus my attention on completing my assigned responsibilities’). Items were measured on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (‘strongly disagree’) to 5 (‘strongly agree’).
Organizational climate. Innovative organizational climate was measured by means of two
Innovation and Flexibility, which consists of six items (e.g., ‘This company is quick to respond when changes need to be made’) and Autonomy, which consists of five items (e.g., ‘Management let people make their own decisions much of the time’). Safety organizational climate was measured by means of one dimension of the OCM, this being Formalization, which consists of five items (e.g., ‘It is considered extremely important here to follow the rules’). Additionally, safety organizational climate was measured by the safety climate measure of Hahn and Murphy (2008), consisting of six items that represent four factors of safety climate: Management commitment to safety, supervisory performance feedback, worker involvement in safety, and co-worker behaviour norms (e.g., ‘Employees are told when they do not follow good safety practices’). The items of all dimensions were measured on a 4-point scale ranging from ‘definitely false to ‘definitely true’.
Leadership style preference. Leadership style preference was measured using the Multilevel
Control variables. Consistent with previous follower-centric leadership studies (e.g.,
Ehrhart & Klein, 2001; Thoroughgood & Sawyer, 2018), age, gender, and years of work experience will be controlled for. Additionally, previous work found extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism to influence one’s preference for a certain leadership style (Thoroughgood & Sawyer, 2018). Moreover, conscientious employees were found to regulate their behaviour more effectively at work (Wallace & Chen, 2006). As such, extraversion (e.g., ‘I am assertive), agreeableness (e.g., ‘I have a forgiving nature’), neuroticism (e.g., ‘I can be nervous), and conscientiousness (e.g., ‘I am organized’) were measured with the corresponding dimensions of the 44-Item Big Five Inventory (John, Donahue & Kentle, 1991).
Data Analysis
Statistical analyses were performed in SPSS Statistics version 25. For hypothesis 1a and 1b, linear regression analyses were performed to test the effect of work regulatory focus on leadership style preferences. For hypothesis 2a and 2b, linear regression analyses were conducted to test the effect of organizational climate on work regulatory focus. Hypothesis 3a and 3b were tested by means of moderated hierarchical regression analyses, by means of which it was tested whether chronic regulatory focus moderates the relationship between organizational climate and work regulatory focus. Finally, for hypothesis 4a and 4b, moderated-mediation analyses were performed by using model 7 of the macro PROCESS (Hayes, 2013). All variables were standardized; hence, standardized coefficients are reported.
regulatory focus are incorporated, and for hypotheses 4a and 4b, finally, the covariates that significantly correlate with both work regulatory focus and leadership style preference are incorporated.
RESULTS
Descriptives and Correlations
The data is normally distributed for both the predictor variables and the dependent variables. Table 1 provides descriptive statistics, internal consistencies, and intercorrelations for all study variables. Innovative organizational climate significantly correlates with chronic promotion focus (r = .18, p = .04). Furthermore, innovative organizational climate significantly correlates with work promotion focus (r = .18, p = .03) and safety organizational climate significantly correlates with work prevention focus (r = .32, p = .00). Additionally, chronic promotion focus and work promotion focus significantly correlate (r = .59, p = .00), and chronic prevention focus and work prevention focus significantly correlate (r = .45, p = .00), indicating that one is likely to have similar chronic and work regulatory foci. Chronic promotion focus and chronic prevention focus do not significantly correlate (r = -.01, n.s.), nor do work promotion focus and work prevention focus significantly correlate (r = .08, n.s.), indicating that the regulatory foci are independent constructs.
Finally, the correlational analysis shows that gender (r = -.25, p = .00), age (r = -.20, p = .02), tenure (r = -.28, p = .00), extraversion (r = .21, p = .01), and conscientiousness (r = .17, p = .03) are significantly correlated with work promotion focus. Age, (r = .21, p = .01), tenure (r = .20, p = .02), agreeableness (r = .21, p = .01), extraversion (r = .23, p = .01), and conscientiousness (r = .20, p = .02), are significantly correlated with transformational leadership style preference as well. Additionally, gender (r = .18, p = .03), education level (r = -.28, p = .00), agreeableness (r = .22, p = .01), and neuroticism (r = .28, p = .00), are significantly correlated with work prevention focus. Education level (r = -.24, p = .00) is significantly correlated with transactional leadership style preference as well.
Hypothesis Testing
Two linear regression analyses were conducted to test the hypothesized relationship between work promotion focus and transformational leadership style preference (hypothesis 1a) and work prevention focus on transactional leadership style preference (hypothesis 1b). Table 2 (hypothesis 1a) and Table 3 (hypothesis 1b) display the coefficients, standard errors, p-values, R-square, and R-square change for the respective analyses. For hypothesis 1a, the analysis demonstrates that Model 2 did not show an improvement over Model 1, indicating that work promotion focus did not predict transformational leadership preference (B = .060, SE = .091,
n.s.); thus, hypothesis 1a was not supported. However, the covariate agreeableness was found
and education level (B = -.213, SE = .077, p = .006) appeared to be significantly and positively related to follower preference for transactional leadership style preference as well.
Table 2
Regression Analyses (Hypothesis 1a)
Transformational leadership style preference
Model 1 Model 2 Intercept .02 (.08) .02 (.08) Age .11 (.10) .11 (.10) Tenure .11 (.10) .13 (.10) Extraversion .16+ (.08) .15+ (.09) Conscientiousness .11 (.08) .10 (.08) Agreeableness .20* (.08) .18* (.09) Work promotion focus .06 (.09) Work prevention focus .09 (.08) R2 .15 .17 ΔR2 .02
Notes. N = 142. Standard Errors between parentheses. +p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01
Table 3
Regression Analyses (Hypothesis 1b)
Transactional leadership style preference
Model 1 Model 2
Intercept 1.08E-15 (.08) 1.40E-15 (.07) Education level -.32** (.08) -.21** (.08) Work prevention focus .33** (.08) Work promotion focus .19* (.07) R2 .10 .25 ΔR2 .15**
Notes. N = 142. Standard Errors between parentheses. +p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01
and safety organizational climate and work prevention focus on the other (hypothesis 2b). Table 4 and Table 5 display the coefficients, standard errors, p-values, R-square, and R-square change for the respective analyses. For hypothesis 2a (Table 4), Model 2 did not show a significant improvement over Model 1, indicating that innovative organizational climate did not significantly predict work promotion focus (B = .121, SE = .077, n.s.). However, the covariates gender (B = -.291, SE = .077, p = .000) and tenure (B = -.252, SE = .097, p = .011) were found to be negatively related to work promotion focus, and the covariates extraversion (B = .178, SE = .077, p = .022) and conscientiousness (B = .246, SE = .080, p = .003) were found to be positively related to work promotion focus. For hypothesis 2b (Table 5), however, Model 2 showed a significant improvement over Model 1, indicating that safety organizational climate is significantly and positively related to work prevention focus (B = .250, SE = .077, p = .001). Additionally, the covariate education level (B = -.217, SE = .075, p = .005) was found to be negatively related to work prevention focus, and the covariate neuroticism (B = .264, SE = .075,
p = .001) was found to be positively related to work prevention focus.
Table 4
Regression Analyses (Hypothesis 2a)
Work promotion focus
Table 5
Regression Analyses (Hypothesis 2b)
Work prevention focus
Model 1 Model 2
Intercept -2.70E-16 (.08) -1.10E-15 (.07)
Gender .13+ (.08) .13+ (.08) Education level -.23** (.08) -.22** (.08) Agreeableness .17* (.08) .11 (.08) Neuroticism .27** (.08) .26** (.08) Safety climate .25** (.08) Innovative climate .06 (.08) R2 .20 .26 ΔR2 .06**
Notes. N = 142. Standard Errors between parentheses. +p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01
Table 6
Regression Analyses (Hypothesis 3a)
Work promotion focus
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Intercept .00 (.07) .01 (.07) -.01 (.07) Age -.05 (.10) .05 (.09) .05 (.09) Gender -.28** (.08) -.25** (.07) -.25** (.07) Tenure -.26** (.10) -.16+ (.09) -.16+ (.09) Extraversion .21** (.08) .11 (.07) .11 (.07) Conscientiousness .27** (.08) .15* (.07) .15* (.07) Chronic prevention focus .11 (.08) .12 (.07) .12 (.07) Safety climate .09 (.08) .08 (.07) .08 (.07) Chronic promotion focus (A) .47** (.07) .47** (.07) Innovative climate (B) .08 (.07) .08 (.07) A x B .03 (.06) R2 .26 .45 .45 ΔR2 .19** .00
Notes. N = 142. Standard Errors between parentheses. +p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01
Table 7
Regression Analyses (Hypothesis 3b)
Work prevention focus
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Intercept 6.45E-17 (0.75) -7.58E-16 (.07) .00 (.07)
Finally, two moderated-mediation analyses were performed to test whether chronic promotion focus moderates the indirect relationship between innovative organizational climate and transformational leadership style preference through work promotion focus (hypothesis 4a) and to test whether chronic prevention focus moderates the indirect relationship between safety organizational climate and transactional leadership style preference through work prevention focus (hypothesis 4b). Table 7 and Table 8 display the coefficient of the conditional indirect effects, the standard error of the coefficient of the conditional indirect effects, and the confidence intervals (for -1 SD, mean, and +1 SD values of chronic regulatory focus) for the respective analyses. As can be seen in Table 8, the indirect relationship between innovative organizational climate and transformational leadership style preference through work promotion focus did not reach a significant level for any level of chronic promotion focus, which is consistent with the moderated hierarchical regression analysis results for hypothesis 3a. Furthermore, the indirect effect of safety organizational climate on transactional leadership style preference through work prevention focus remains significant for most values of chronic prevention focus, albeit that the indirect effect turns into an insignificant level for very low levels of chronic prevention focus. An additional mediation analysis that did not take the role of chronic prevention focus into account indeed indicated that work prevention focus mediates the indirect relationship between safety organizational climate and transactional leadership style preference (indirect effect = .084, SE = .033, 95% CI [.03, .17]).
Table 8
Regression Analyses (Hypothesis 4a)
Conditional Indirect Effect
Coefficient (SE) 95% CI
-1 SD (Chronic Promotion Focus) Mean (Chronic Promotion Focus) +1 SD (Chronic Promotion Focus)
Table 9
Regression Analyses (Hypothesis 4b)
Conditional Indirect Effect
Coefficient (SE) 95% CI
-1 SD (Chronic Prevention Focus) Mean (Chronic Prevention Focus) +1 SD (Chronic Prevention Focus)
.06 .10* .14* (.04) (.04) (.05) [-.01, .16] [.04, .20] [.07, .26] R2 .18 Notes. N = 141. +p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01 DISCUSSION
This study also reported evidence of covariates that significantly predicted leadership style preference and / or work regulatory focus, of which the most crucial ones are discussed here. Regarding leadership style preferences, agreeableness appeared to significantly predict transformational leadership style preference. As agreeable individuals are good-natured, trusting, and flexible (Barrick & Mount, 1991), they might prefer transformational leaders as transformational leaders build relationships based on trust, encourage (creative) flexibility, and do not monitor their followers as closely as transactional leaders.
Both transactional leadership preference and work prevention focus were negatively predicted by education level. Thus, the lower (versus higher) one is educated, the more (versus less) one prefers a transactional leader or adopts a work prevention focus. This finding may be expected based on the notion that transactional leaders set up rules and agreements, which may be highly welcomed by lower-educated followers as they generally need to put more effort in strategic thinking and organizing their own behaviour, and the notion that prevention focus goes hand in hand with responsible and vigilant behaviours rather than the development of one’s abilities by mastering challenging situations (Gorman et al., 2012).
Finally, consistent with a previous meta-analysis (Lanaj et al., 2012), conscientiousness and extraversion significantly predicted work promotion focus, while neuroticism significantly predicted work prevention focus.
Theoretical Implications
Vinkenburg, and Wilson-Evered (2008: 229) argue that “[transactional] leadership must be defined in order to fully understand the ways in which transformational leaders influence followers”, indicating that the construct of transactional leadership is solely useful to serve as a sort of contrast compared to which transformational leadership would seem to be superior (Van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013). In like manner, many studies conclude that transformational leadership should be seen as an expansion or extension of transactional behaviour (e.g., Felfe et al., 2004; Howell & Avolio, 1993; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990; Reuvers et al., 2008), which is called the augmentation effect (Bass, 1998). Thus, these studies share the belief that transformational leadership holds universal appeal.
However, the majority of these studies, if not all, have argued from a leader perspective. In contrast, the current study emphasizes the need for a more sophisticated view on what ideal leadership entails, as it demonstrates that prevention-focused followers prefer transactional leaders. That is, transactional leaders encourage behaviour by which negative outcomes are avoided and by which standard work performance is conformed rather than exceeded, which is in line with the preferred goal-striving behaviour of prevention-focused followers. Thus, followers tend to prefer leaders who are similar to themselves, a finding that is consistent with previous studies on perceived leader-follower similarity (e.g., Berscheid, 1984; Ehrhart & Klein, 2001; Hamstra et al., 2014; Kandel, 1978; Watson, Hubbard, & Wiese, 2000).
preferences for transformational leadership and 2) why followers high in work promotion focus more strongly prefer transactional leaders.
Transformational leaders recognize the emotional needs and affective responses of followers (Bono & Judge, 2003), which enables them to build high-quality relationships with their followers (Carter, Armenakis, Feild, & Mossholder, 2013). Although transformational leaders might be just as able to impact followers’ goal-striving behaviour (Hamstra et al., 2014), regulatory focus appears not to be the mechanism through which followers prefer transformational leaders. As a matter of fact, however, intellectual stimulation, one of the transformational behaviours, might even diminish follower satisfaction with transformational leaders. That is, “leaders who continually urge or exhort followers to search for new and better methods of doing things might create ambiguity, conflict, or other forms of stress in the minds of those followers” (Podsakoff et al., 1990: 135). Indeed, various studies have demonstrated that followers’ satisfaction with transformational leaders is the result of their ability to positively affect followers’ values, attitudes, and emotions rather than their goal-pursuit behaviour. More specifically, followers show a greater liking for transformational leaders because they present job-related tasks in terms of ideologies and values that reflect followers’ authentic interests (Bono & Judge, 2003), they instil in their followers feelings of trust (Bartram & Casimir, 2007), they take great personal risks and as such serve as an example (Conger, Kanungo & Menon, 2000), and they express positive emotions (Rowold & Rohmann, 2009). Although followers’ satisfaction with transformational leadership might, at first sight, be considered a different construct than followers’ preferences for transformational leadership, Singer and Singer (1980) demonstrated that followers’ preferences for transformational leadership are reflected in their reported levels of satisfaction with that leadership style.
environment of followers, or by offering material incentives and the threat of punishment” (Shamir, House & Arthur, 1993: 578). Thus, whereas transactional leaders may be preferred for the specific reason of encouraging particular goal-pursuit behaviour as a result of them “affecting the task environment of followers”, this ‘preference mechanism’ probably does not hold for transformational leaders.
Additionally, the findings of this study suggest that followers high (low) in work promotion focus more (less) strongly prefer transactional leaders. Why would this be the case? Two possible explanations might provide some clarity. First, followers high in promotion focus more strongly pursue goals that specify the conditions necessary for success. Similarly, transactional leaders formulate expectations with respect to the accomplishments followers need to achieve in order to receive rewards. Followers can achieve these rewards (e.g., success) if they follow the behavioural guidelines (e.g., the conditions necessary for success) as established by the transactional leader. Since followers high in promotion focus are more strongly inclined to engage in approach-related goal-pursuit behaviours than followers low in promotion focus (who appear more amotivated; Johnson, Chang & Yang, 2010), they are more likely to strongly prefer transactional leaders. Thus, followers high in promotion focus might prefer transactional leaders more strongly as transactional leaders provide them with behavioural guidelines, via which – if acted upon ‘correctly’ – promotion-focused followers can achieve successes.
promotion-focused individuals intrinsically desirable, ends, such as achieving success (Johnson et al., 2010). Thus, compared to followers low in promotion focus, who are less driven by approach-related goal-pursuit behaviours, followers high in promotion focus may more strongly prefer transactional leaders as they – through the provision of rewards– ultimately fulfil their intrinsic desire to achieve successes.
Practical Implications
(Shamir et al., 1993). Both practical recommendations imply that leaders should gain knowledge with respect to followers’ work regulatory focus.
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
The findings in this study are subject to a number of caveats. First, this study has relied on cross-sectional, subjective measures, such that the possibility of common method bias cannot be ruled out. Moreover, there has been no prior selection of respondents working in innovative organizational climates and respondents working in safety organizational climates. Consequently, data has been collected by means of convenience sampling, which again might have introduced bias. Furthermore, although Bass (1985: 154) has argued that “transformational leadership is more likely to […] emerge in times of distress and change while transactional leadership is more likely to be observed in a well-ordered society”, this study did not distinguish relatively stable organizations from organizations currently undergoing transformations. Not accounting for these aspects has possibly reduced the sample variance.
focused strategies in order to return to the status quo (Johnson et al., 2015). As a consequence, in these specific circumstances, they might prefer transactional leaders to a lesser degree, as both contingent reward and active management by exception behaviours are not likely to contribute to successful change outcomes. That is, one needs to learn, through trial and error, how to best implement and cope with large organizational changes. Additionally, as the risk-seeking behaviours prevention-focused followers engage in during these times do not fit with transactional leadership behaviours, this again calls into question whether the ‘work prevention focus – transactional leadership style preference’ relationship holds.
Third, according to Bass (1985), effective leaders use a combination of both transformational and transactional leadership behaviours. Therefore, another objective of future research would be to examine whether follower preferences for leaders who exhibit both transformational behaviours as well as transactional behaviours would be higher compared to leaders who exhibit either transformational behaviours or transactional behaviours. In order to explain why different types of followers prefer one (or more) of these leaders, future research could include various mediators, such as work regulatory focus (which, according to the current study, explains follower preferences for transactional leadership), and values, attitudes, and emotions (which, according to previous research, explain follower preferences for transformational leadership). This would yield a more complete picture of both followers’ leadership preferences as well as the reasons behind their leadership preferences.
Conclusion
focus mediated the indirect relationship between safety organizational climate and transactional leadership style preference. Contrary to expectations, it was found that work promotion focus was not significantly related to transformational leadership style preference. Surprisingly, however, it was found that work promotion focus is a significant predictor of transactional leadership style preference as well. Nevertheless, in general, preferences for transformational leadership were higher than preferences for transactional leadership. Possible explanations might relate to the distinctive influence these two types of leaders have on follower characteristics. That is, as transactional leaders set clear behavioural guidelines, they might be preferred by their followers because these behavioural guidelines fit, in one way or another, followers’ work regulatory focus. On the other hand, as transformational leaders positively affect followers’ values, attitudes, and emotions, they do not set clear behavioural guidelines, which might explain why a relationship between work regulatory focus and transformational leadership style preference is missing. Despite these theoretical explanations, methodological limitations might underlie the insignificant relation between work promotion focus and transformational leadership style preference. Therefore, future research is needed to reduce methodological limitations and to enhance our understanding of the role of work regulatory focus in predicting followers’ leadership style preferences.
REFERENCES
Abbey, A., & Dickson, J. W. (1983). R&D work climate and innovation in semiconductors. Academy of Management Journal, 26(2), 362-368.
Bandura, A. (1988). Self-regulation of motivation and action through goal systems. In V. Hamilton, F. H. Bower, & N. H. Frijda (Eds.). Cognitive perspectives on emotion and
motivation (pp. 37-61). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academics Publishers.
Bartram, T., & Casimir, G. (2007). The relationship between leadership and follower in-role performance and satisfaction with the leader: The mediating effects of empowerment and trust in the leader. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 28(1), 4-19.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Bass, B. M. (1996). A new paradigm of leadership: An inquiry into transformational
leadership. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social
Sciences.
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industry, military, and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Manual: The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (eds.). (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through
transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1996). Development of leader-member exchange: A longitudinal test. Academy of Management Journal, 39(6), 1538-1567.
Becker, T. E. (2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research
Methods, 8(3), 274-289.
Becker, T. E., Billings, R. S., Eveleth, D. M., & Gilbert, N. L. (1996). Foci and bases of employee commitment: Implications for job performance. Academy of Management
Berscheid, E. (1984). Interpersonal attraction. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.). Handbook
of Social Psychology. (pp. 413-482). Reading, MA: Addision-Wesley.
Bogler, R., Caspi, A., & Roccas, S. (2013). Transformational and passive leadership: An initial investigation of university instructors as leaders in a virtual learning environment. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 41(3), 372-392. Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 1(3), 185–216.
Carter, M. Z., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., & Mossholder, K. W. (2013). Transformational leadership, relationship quality, and employee performance during continuous incremental organizational change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(7), 942-958.
Clarke, S. (2010). An integrative model of safety climate: Linking psychological climate and work attitudes to individual safety outcomes using meta‐ analysis. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 83(3), 553-578.
Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N., & Menon, S. T. (2000). Charismatic leadership and follower effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(7), 747-767.
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.
Dedobbeleer, N., & Béland, F. (1991). A safety climate measure for construction sites. Journal
of Safety Research, 22(2), 97-103.
Den Hartog, D., Van Muijen, J., & Koopman, P. (1994). Transactioneel versus transformationeel leiderschap: een analyse van de MLQ in de Nederlandse situatie. Gedrag
Derue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N. E. D., & Humphrey, S. E. (2011). Trait and behavioral theories of leadership: An integration and meta‐ analytic test of their relative validity. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 7-52.
Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Porocesses,
69(2), 117-132.
Ehrhart, M. G., & Klein, K. J. (2001). Predicting followers’ preferences for charismatic leadership: The influence of follower values and personality. Leadership Quarterly, 12(2), 153-179.
Felfe, J. & Goihl, K. (2002) Transformational Leadership and Commitment in Different Organizational Contexts. In J. Felfe (ed.), Organizational Development and Leadership (pp. 87-124). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Felfe, J., & Schyns, B. (2006). Personality and the perception of transformational leadership: The impact of extraversion, neuroticism, personal need for structure, and occupational self‐ efficacy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(3), 708-739.
Felfe, J., & Schyns, B. (2010). Followers' personality and the perception of transformational leadership: Further evidence for the similarity hypothesis. British Journal of
Management, 21(2), 393-410.
Felfe, J., Tartler, K., & Liepmann, D. (2004). Advanced research in the field of transformational leadership. German Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(3), 262-288.
Forster, 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(1), 148–164.
Gorman, C. A., Meriac, J. P., Overstreet, B. L., Apodaca, S., McIntyre, A. L., Park, P., & Godbey, J. N. (2012). A meta-analysis of the regulatory focus nomological network: Work-related antecedents and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(1), 160-172. Hahn, S., & Murphy, L. (2008). A short scale for measuring safety climate. Safety
Science, 46(7), 1047-1066.
Hamstra, M. R., Van Yperen, N. W., Wisse, B., & Sassenberg, K. (2014). On the perceived effectiveness of transformational–transactional leadership: The role of encouraged strategies and followers' regulatory focus. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(6), 643-656. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process
Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York, USA: Guilford.
Hauser, D. J., & Schwarz, N. (2015). It’s a trap! Instructional manipulation checks prompt systematic thinking on “tricky” tasks. Sage Open, 5(2), 1-6.
Hetland, H., Sandal, G. M., & Johnsen, T. B. (2008). Followers' personality and leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14(4), 322-331.
Higgins, E.T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12): 1280-1300. Higgins, E. T. (2000). Making a good decision: value from fit. American Psychologist, 55(11),
1217-1230.
Higgins, E. T. (2006). Value from hedonic experience and engagement. Psychological
Review, 113(3), 439-460.
Higgins, E. T., Roney, C. J., Crowe, E., & Hymes, C. (1994). Ideal versus ought predilections for approach and avoidance distinct self-regulatory systems. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 66(2), 276-286.
House, R. J. (1971). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 16(3), 321-339.
Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-business-unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(6), 891-902.
Johnson, R. E., Chang, C. H., & Yang, L. Q. (2010). Commitment and motivation at work: The relevance of employee identity and regulatory focus. Academy of Management
Review, 35(2), 226-245.
James, L.R., James, L.A., Ashe, D.K., (1990). The meaning of organizations: The role of cognition and values. In: Schneider, B. (Ed.), Organizational Climate and Culture (pp. 40-84). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Johnson, P. D., Smith, M. B., Wallace, J. C., Hill, A. D., & Baron, R. A. (2015). A review of multilevel regulatory focus in organizations. Journal of Management, 41(5), 1501-1529. Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2003). The core self‐ evaluations scale:
Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56(2), 303-331.
Kandel, D. (1978). Similarity in real-life adolescent friendships pairs. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 36(3), 306-312.
Keller, T. (1999). Images of the familiar: Individual differences and implicit leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(4), 589-607.
Kozlowski, S. W., & Doherty, M. L. (1989). Integration of climate and leadership: Examination of a neglected issue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4), 546-553.
Kuenzi, M., & Schminke, M. (2009). Assembling fragments into a lens: A review, critique, and proposed research agenda for the organizational work climate literature. Journal of
Lanaj, K., Chang, C. H., & Johnson, R. E. (2012). Regulatory focus and work-related outcomes: a review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(5), 998-1034.
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.
Meglino, B. M., Ravlin, E. C., & Adkins, C. L. (1991). Value congruence and satisfaction with a leader: An examination of the role of interaction. Human Relations, 44(5), 481-495. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61-89.
Neal, A., & Griffin, M. A. (2002). Safety climate and safety behaviour. Australian Journal of
Management, 27 (Special issue), 67-75.
Neal, A., & Griffin, M. A. (2006). A study of the lagged relationships among safety climate, safety motivation, safety behavior, and accidents at the individual and group levels. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 946-953.
Neubert, M. J., Kacmar, K. M., Carlson, D. S., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A. (2008). Regulatory focus as a mediator of the influence of initiating structure and servant leadership on employee behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1220-1233.
Paolillo, J. G., & Brown, W. B. (1978). How organizational factors affect R&D innovation. Research Management, 21(2), 12-15.
Patterson, M. G., West, M. A., Shackleton, V. J., Dawson, J. F., Lawthom, R., Maitlis, S., Robinson, & Wallace, A. M. (2005). Validating the organizational climate measure: links to managerial practices, productivity and innovation. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 26(4), 379-408.
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.
Pulakos, E. D., & Wexley, K. N. (1983). The relationship among perceptual similarity, sex, and performance ratings in manager-subordinate dyads. Academy of Management
Journal, 26(1), 129-139.
Reuvers, M., Van Engen, M. L., Vinkenburg, C. J., & Wilson‐ Evered, E. (2008). Transformational leadership and innovative work behaviour: Exploring the relevance of gender differences. Creativity and Innovation Management, 17(3), 227-244.
Rowold, J., & Rohmann, A. (2009). Transformational and transactional leadership styles, followers' positive and negative emotions, and performance in German nonprofit orchestras. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 20(1), 41-59.
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(3), 580-607. Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W. H. (2013). Organizational climate and
culture. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 361-388.
Scholer, A. A., & Higgins, E. T. (2008). Distinguishing levels of approach and avoidance: An analysis using regulatory focus theory. In A. J. Elliot (Ed.), Handbook of approach and
avoidance motivation (pp. 489-503). New York: Psychology Press.
Schyns, B., & Felfe, J. (2006). The personality of followers and its effect on the perception of leadership: An overview, a study, and a research agenda. Small Group Research, 37(5), 522-539.
Shah, J., Higgins, T., & Friedman, R. S. (1998). Performance incentives and means: how regulatory focus influences goal attainment. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 74(2), 285-293.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4(4), 577-594.
Siegel, S. M., & Kaemmerer, W. F. (1978). Measuring the perceived support for innovation in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(5), 553-562.
Singer, M., & Singer, A. (1990). Situational constraints on transformational versus transactional leadership behavior, subordinates' leadership preference, and satisfaction. The
Journal of Social Psychology, 130(3), 385-396.
Spiegel, S., Grant‐ Pillow, H., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). How regulatory fit enhances motivational strength during goal pursuit. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34(1), 39-54.
Stogdill, R. M. (1950). Leadership, membership and organization. Psychological Bulletin,
47(1), 1-14.
Thoroughgood, C. N., & Sawyer, K. B. (2018). Who wants to follow the leader? Using personality and work value profiles to predict preferences for charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic styles of leading. Journal of Business and Psychology, 33(2), 181-202.
Turban, D. B., & Jones, A. P. (1988). Supervisor-subordinate similarity: types, effects, and mechanisms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(2), 228-234.
Van Dijk, D., & Kluger, A. N. (2004). Feedback sign effect on motivation: Is it moderated by regulatory focus? Applied Psychology, 53(1), 113-135.
Varonen, U., & Mattila, M. (2000). The safety climate and its relationship to safety practices, safety of the work environment and occupational accidents in eight wood-processing companies. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 32(6), 761-769.
Wallace, C., & Chen, G. (2006). A multilevel integration of personality, climate, self‐ regulation, and performance. Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 529-557.
Wallace, J.C., Popp, E., Mondore, S. (2006). Safety climate as a mediator between foundation climates and occupational accidents: A group-level investigation. Journal of Applied
Psychology 91(3), 681-688.
Wallace, J. C., Butts, M. M., Johnson, P. D., Stevens, F. G., & Smith, M. B. (2016). A multilevel model of employee innovation: Understanding the effects of regulatory focus, thriving, and employee involvement climate. Journal of Management, 42(4), 982-1004.
Watson, D., Hubbard, B., & Wiese, D. (2000). Self-other agreement in personality and affectivity: The role of acquaintanceship, trait visibility, and assumed similarity. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 78(3), 546-558.
Yammarino, F. J., Dubinsky, A. J., Comer, L. B., & Jolson, M. A. (1997). Women and transformational and contingent reward leadership: A multiple-levels-of-analysis perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 205-222.
Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations: Global edition. (8th ed.). Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
Zohar, D. (1980). Safety climate in industrial organizations: Theoretical and applied implications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(1), 96-102.
Zohar, D. (2000). A group-level model of safety climate: Testing the effect of group climate on microaccidents in manufacturing jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(4), 587-596. Zohar, D. (2002). Modifying supervisory practices to improve subunit safety: A
