THE INFLUENCE OF CONTINGENT REWARD LEADERSHIP ON EMPLOYEE JOB PERFORMANCE: THE MODERATING ROLE OF REGULATORY
PREVENTION FOCUS AT WORK
Master thesis, MSc Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
May 22nd, 2014 SARA BRINK Student number: 1848410 Snikkevaardersgang 7a 9711 RW Groningen Tel: +31 (0)6 10036975 E-mail: s.c.brink@student.rug.nl First supervisor: R. Said Second supervisor: Prof. dr. B.A. Nijstad
Acknowledgement:
2 ABSTRACT
This research attempts to clarify the inconsistent results in previous research about the relationship between contingent reward leadership and job performance of employees.
Therefore, this study uses prevention focus of employees at work as a moderator to better understand the relationship. We expect that the positive relationship between contingent reward and employees’ job performance is stronger under low prevention focus compared to high prevention focus. In order to perform this research, a large multi organizational field study was conducted with leader ratings of employees’ job performance. The results indicate that contingent reward leadership is significantly and positively related to job performance of employees. Additionally, prevention focus at work was found to moderate the relationship between contingent reward leadership and job performance significantly, such that this relationship is stronger under low prevention focus and weaker under high prevention focus. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
3 INTRODUCTION
Employees are the most important resource of companies and can make or break the organizations’ successes. Therefore, it is essential that employees perform their tasks correctly. Since organizational success depends on employees’ performance, poor performance could have disastrous consequences for companies and could be detrimental to a company’s success (Mayhew, 2013). Consequently, it is interesting for companies to know which different factors could stimulate the job performance of employees. Job performance is a construct that indicates how well employees perform their tasks, the initiative they take, and the
resourcefulness they show in solving problems (Rothmann & Coetzer, 2003).
The last two decades show an increasing interest in understanding the relationship between systems of human resource practices and firm performance (Wright, Gardner, Moynihan & Allen, 2005). It has been argued that HR systems can improve the ability and motivation of employees and thereby increase firm performance (Barney & Wright, 1998; Wright, Dunford, & Snell, 2001; Wright, McMahan, & McWilliams, 1994). One of such HR systems that could influence employees’ performance is contingent reward leadership. Contingent reward behavior is generally associated with granting positive feedback in the form of recognition, praise, acknowledgement or financial rewards to employees that show desirable behavior (Tremblay, Vandenberghe & Doucet, 2012). The early path-goal model of leadership (House, 1971; House & Mitchell, 1974) suggested that the existence of a strong relationship between performance and valued rewards, would lead to high performance. Recent meta-analyses have also shown that contingent reward has positive effects on a range of organizational outcomes (Podsakoff, Bommer, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006) and that contingent reward has a positive impact on individual performance (Wang, Courtright, & Colbert, 2011).
4 between contingent reward and job performance of employees. However, some research projects did not find a significant relationship between contingent reward and performance. Therefore, I argue that a moderator could influence this relationship, since it is not evident under which conditions the relationship between contingent reward and employee
performance is present. Although Podsakoff, Todor, Grover and Huber (1984) examined several job characteristics as moderators on the contingent reward-performance relationship, their results did not show significant moderating effects. Moreover, the study of Podsakoff et al. (1984) did not examine any employee characteristics at work. Therefore, this study will use a moderator concerning a personal characteristic of subordinates at work. I argue that prevention focus from Higgins’ regulatory focus theory will moderate the relationship between contingent reward and employee job performance. Higgins (1998) introduced the regulatory focus theory and defines people with a self-regulation prevention focus as people that are concerned with protection, safety, and responsibility. I argue that there are two main reasons for expecting prevention focus to act as a moderator. First, there is a lack of focus within the contingent reward concept (Camps & Torres, 2011), which the regulatory focus theory could specify. A second reason is that people could differ in their sensitivity towards rewards (Burnett, Williamson & Bartol, 2005) and the regulatory focus theory could take these differences in sensitivity into account. Since employees with a high prevention focus are more likely to see the negative side of work and are less sensitive to rewards, it is expected that the relationship between contingent reward and job performance will become less positive. On the other hand, when employees have a low prevention focus they are less
focused on protection and safety and are more sensitive to rewards, and therefore I expect that the contingent reward-performance relationship will be more positive.
5 Since there is a lack of research on moderators in research on the contingent reward theory (Podsakoff et al., 2006), this article attempts to explain why the relationship between contingent reward and performance is not clear-cut and why other articles did not find a significant relationship. In addition, this article has also practical relevance since it provides understanding under which conditions contingent reward leadership leads to the highest job performance. Therefore, practical implications for employers and human resource managers are explored. This article starts with a theoretical overview, which is followed by the
explanation of the methodology. After the methodology section, the results and the discussion are stated. Finally, the conclusion sums up the most important findings and implications.
THEORY AND HYPOTHESIS
The relationship between contingent reward leadership and employee performance Since job performance of employees is a crucial factor for organizational success (Mayhew, 2013), it is important to understand what job performance exactly means. Although there are many definitions of job performance, this study follows the definition of Rothmann and Coetzer (2003). According to these researchers job performance is a construct which indicates how well employees perform their tasks, the initiative they take, and the
resourcefulness they show in solving problems. In other words, employees’ job performance is partially determined by task performance of employees. Task performance is defined as employee effectiveness with regard to those activities that contribute to the organization’s core business (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997; Sackett, Berry, Wiemann & Laczo, 2006). Since task performance is the most widely studied domain of job performance and provides an overall view of the internal job performance (Dalal, Baysinger, Brummel & Le Breton, 2012), this article will use task performance as a proxy for employees’ job performance.
6 followers in exchange for their effort and performance. Most researchers refer to contingent reinforcement as the core component of effective leadership behavior in organizations (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978; House 1977). Both positive and negative reinforcement are seen as the heart of transactional leadership (Avolio, 1999; Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978; Howell & Avolio, 1993). According to Bass (1985) and Burns (1978), transactional leaders create a “give and take” relationship with their subordinates. In this relationship the leader identifies the rewards that followers would receive for their effort and performance (e.g. contingent rewards), or the corrective actions when followers did not perform effectively (e.g. penalties) (Podsakoff et al., 2006). Negative contingent reinforcement is a response of the manager to an employee’s failure to achieve the desired performance. The reaction of the manager creates an incentive for the employee to change its behavior (Bass, 1985). On the other hand, positive contingent reinforcement strengthens employee performance, because the leader provides recognition when the goals are achieved. Contingent reward leadership is perceived successful by followers, when followers endorse and accept the exchange from their leader (e.g. praise, rewards) because they perceive the exchange as reasonable in proportion to their performance (Avolio, Bass, Jung, & Berson, 2003). Finally, according to Bass (1985), transactional
7 Howell and Avolio (1993) showed that contingent reward might be associated with higher levels of team performance. Furthermore, Wang et al. (2011) found that contingent reward explained unique variance in predicting follower individual-level task performance. Finally, the importance of contingent reward is also noted by House (1974) in his Path-Goal Theory of Leadership. This theory suggests that leaders’ establishment of a close linkage between
subordinates’ performance and rewards will increase employees’ performance because close linkages improve job satisfaction. Following the literature, the first hypothesis is stated.
Hypothesis 1: Contingent reward leadership will be positively related to employee job performance
The moderating role of employee prevention focus at work
Although many studies found a positive relationship between contingent reward and performance, there are studies that could not find a significant relationship (Kesselman, Wood, & Hagen, 1974). Because of the inconsistency in results about the relationship between
contingent reward and performance, the current study will examine a moderator on this relationship. Examining a moderator is a prominent theme of many leadership models since it is essential that leaders’ behavior “match” or “fit” the situation. These leadership models share the proposition that the types of leader traits or behaviors that will be effective in one situation may not be effective in the other. This means that situational variables could moderate the relationship. Podsakoff et al. (1984) examined several moderators on the contingent reward-performance relationship. Unfortunately, the results did not show
8 relationship between contingent reward and employee job performance in such a way that this relationship is weaker under high prevention focus and stronger under low prevention focus. This section starts with a detailed explanation of Higgins’ theory about prevention focus. Secondly, the two main arguments for expecting prevention focus to work as a moderator will be clarified.
Higgins (1998) made a distinction between two types of regulatory focus, namely prevention focus and promotion focus. On the one hand, individuals with prevention focus, whether chronically or contextually, have a preference to reach desired end states by avoiding mismatches. On the other hand, individuals with a promotion focus, whether chronically or contextually, have a preference to accomplish desired end states by approaching matches. Since this article is concerned with prevention focus, we will examine this concept into further detail. People with a self-regulatory prevention focus are concerned with security, safety and responsibility (Crowe & Higgins, 1997) and are driven by the need to protect oneself from psychological harm and failure, which is done by avoiding unfavorable circumstances and setting feared goals. The prevention and promotion focus are ways of regulating pleasure and pain and these focuses have a major impact on people’s feelings, thoughts, and actions. These strategic differences determine how people go about solving problems and making decisions in their lives (Higgins, 1998). Regulatory focus theory, however, is also applicable in organizations where employees have different kinds of motivations to act in a certain way. For example, some employees will have a higher
9 and cautious to achieve their goals. On the other hand, employees with a low state prevention focus will demonstrate more risky behavior to fulfill their tasks. In sum, prevention focus is concerned with the presence or absence of negative outcomes and the attempt to avoid losses (Idson, Liberman & Higgins, 2000).
In this article, I argue that there are two main reasons for expecting a moderating effect of prevention focus on the relationship between contingent reward and job performance of employees. The first reason to examine this moderator is the lack of focus in the contingent reward theory. In the contingent reward theory it is not clear-cut what is rewarded exactly (Camps & Torres, 2011).For instance, it is unclear if the rewards are incentives for behavior, effort or performance of employees. As a result, the focus for rewarding is left unspecified. Prevention focus is a concept that could give a certain focus to contingent reward, since this concept will add an orientation towards specific behavior that could influence employees’ performance.
The second reason for using prevention focus as a moderator is that employees’ reaction to a reward could depend on their personal sensitivity towards rewards. The difference in personal sensitivity towards rewards is reflected in Higgins’ theory. Since responses to rewards are partly determined by personal differences of employees at work (Burnett, Williamson & Bartol, 2005), it is questionable if contingent reward leadership is effective for all kinds of employees. The question rises to which extent low or high prevention focus will lead to the strongest contingent reward-performance relationship. For example, workers with a high prevention focus could differ from workers with a low prevention focus in their sensitivity towards rewards. Several researchers found different degrees in sensitivity to a reward due to personal differences. Brendl, Higgins and Lemm (1995) found that
10 degree of extraversion and low neuroticism simultaneously are more sensitive to signals of rewards than individuals who showed a high degree of introversion and high neuroticism. This leads to the assumption that job performance of introvert people will be less influenced by rewards than the job performance of extravert people (Burnett et al., 2005). I argue that the prevention focus could be related to introversion, since several characteristics from
introversion can be associated to characteristics of prevention focus. For instance, introversion characteristics such as a tendency towards deliberation, analyzing, defending and thinking before speaking, are characteristics that could be related to more secure and safe behavior, which are characteristics of people with a high prevention focus.
Given this reasoning, I argue that workers with a high prevention focus are less sensitive to contingent reward leadership and as a result I expect that job performance of employees will be less influenced. On the other hand, I expect that workers with a low prevention focus are more sensitive to contingent rewards and thus employees’ job performance will improve. Therefore, the second and final hypothesis of this study is:
Hypothesis 2: Employee prevention focus at work moderates the positive relationship between contingent reward leadership and employee performance in such a way that this relationship is stronger under low prevention focus and weaker under high prevention focus.
METHODOLOGY
Sample and procedures
11 using online questionnaires for both employees and supervisors, and was gathered in March 2014. The questionnaire included a cover letter with information and instructions. The questionnaire for employees contained items concerning the extent to which they are
prevention focused and the extent to which they perceive contingent reward leadership from their supervisor. The supervisors received a questionnaire in which they were asked to rate their employees on job performance. In order to measure the diverse variables, distinguished multi-item scales were used. These multi-item scales have been shown to be valid and reliable in previous research. The items in the questionnaire had a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), and were formulated in Dutch.
The cover letter mentioned that the data obtained was treated confidentially and that the research was anonymous. For the employees the questionnaire took about thirty minutes to complete, and for the supervisors it took about twenty minutes. To keep the data reliable, a supervisor could evaluate a maximum of 10 employees. When the supervisor was responsible for more than 10 employees, only the first ten team members (according to alphabetical order) were to be considered by the supervisor. Two weeks after the distribution of the
questionnaires, a reminder was sent to increase the response rate.
The response rate for employees was 73.1% which means that 225 out of 308 approached employees responded, whereas the response rate for supervisors was 88.6% meaning that 39 out of 44 approached supervisors filled in the questionnaire. One employee did not answer the questions concerning social demographic characteristics. There were 173 male respondents (76.9%) among the employees, and 32 male respondents (82.1%) among the supervisors. The average age of the employees was 42.38 (SD = 12.61). The youngest
12 lower professional education (MBO), 83 employees (36.9%) completed a higher professional education (HBO) and 42 employees (18.7%) hold a university degree. Moreover, 13
supervisors (33.3%) completed a lower professional education, 10 supervisors (25.6%) completed a higher professional education and 15 supervisors (38.5%) hold a university
degree. The average organizational tenure among the employees was 13.11 years (SD = 12.91) with a minimum organizational tenure of 0 years and a maximum organizational tenure of 44 years. The average organizational tenure among the supervisors was 16.95 years (SD = 12.65) with a minimum organizational tenure of 0 years and a maximum organizational of 41 years.
Measures
Contingent reward. The extent to which employees experienced contingent reward
leadership was measured with a number of questions taken from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (5X) of Avolio, Bass and Jung (1999). This Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire is a questionnaire for employees to describe their respective leader and this scale is the dominant measure for examining contingent reward leadership (Grover & Coppins, 2012). Contingent reward was measured on a four-item scale. Two examples of the four items were ‘My supervisor clarifies rewards’ and ‘My supervisor rewards your achievement’. Since all items were formulated in the same direction, it was not necessary to reverse-code any items. The internal consistency coefficient between all items for contingent reward was .87.
Prevention focus. To examine the prevention focus of employees at work, the measure
from Johnson and Chang (2008) was used. This measure consisted out of six items. A few examples were, ‘I am focused on fail experiences that could occur while working’ and ‘I think about negative aspects concerning losing my job’. The items are a reliable representation of prevention focus with a Cronbach’s Alpha (α) of .81. It was not required to reverse code items since all items were framed in a similar way.
13 measure of Wayne, Shore and Liden (1997). The supervisor rated the performance of each employee on a three-item scale. An example of one of the questions is ‘This employee performs his/her duties in an effective manner’. All items were framed in the same direction and therefore it was not necessary to reverse-code items. The Cronbach’s alpha (α) for job performance was .87, showing consistency among the items.
Control variables. Including control variables that are not correlated with the
dependent variable will reduce power, unless there is reason to believe that control variables are suppressed legitimately (Becker, 2005). Therefore, I merely controlled for age, gender and organizational tenure. Age was used as a control variable, because it may positively relate to the job performance of employees. Older workers may have more work experience and therefore are likely to perform better than younger employees. Age of respondents was measured in years. Moreover, organizational tenure was used as a control variable since Williams & O’Reilly (1998) found some evidence for significant relationships between tenure diversity and performance outcomes. Organizational tenure was also measured in years.
Analysis
In order to perform the data analyses, first a correlation analysis was executed. To test the first hypothesis, a hierarchical regression analysis was performed to expose the
relationship between contingent reward and job performance. In order to test the second hypothesis, the independent variable and moderator were standardized before the interaction term was formed (Aiken & West, 1991). The interaction variable was computed by
multiplying the standardized independent variable with the standardized moderator.
RESULTS
Descriptive statistics and correlations
14 coefficients of the analyzed variables. First, significant correlations between
social-demographic variables are described, and thereafter the correlations between contingent reward, prevention focus and job performance are explained.
(Insert table 1 about here)
Gender. As the table shows, a significantly negative correlation between gender and
organizational tenure was found (r = -.21, p < .05), meaning that men on average, had a higher organizational tenure than woman.
Age. A significantly negative correlation between age and prevention focus of
employees was found (r = -.14, p < .05), implying that older employees have a lower prevention focus. Moreover, the correlation between age and organizational tenure was significantly positive (r = .77, p < .01). This implies that employees with a high tenure are older.
Organizational tenure. Negative correlations between organizational tenure and
contingent reward, prevention focus and job performance were found. However, none of these correlations were significant.
Contingent reward. The correlation table indicated a significant negative correlation
between contingent reward leadership and prevention focus (r = -.18, p < .01), meaning that a high level of contingent reward leadership is associated with a lower prevention focus of employees at work. With regard to the predicted main effect, contingent reward leadership was significantly positive related to job performance of employees (r = .22, p < .01). This implies that when a supervisor shows a high level of contingent reward leadership the job performance of employees will increase.
Prevention focus. According to table 1, there is a significant negative correlation
15 implying that a high level of employee prevention focus in general relates to lower job
performance.
Hypotheses testing
Table 2 presents the regression results for testing the moderating role of prevention focus on the relationship between contingent reward leadership and employee job
performance.
(Insert table 2 about here)
In order to test the first hypothesis, a hierarchical regression was performed. First the control variables age, gender and organizational tenure were entered into the regression equations. Second, the independent variable – contingent reward – was also entered in the regression calculation. The first hypothesis stated that contingent reward leadership is positively related to job performance of employees. According to table 2, contingent reward leadership has a highly significant positive relationship with the job performance of
employees (B = .14, p < .01). Since these results were in line with our expectations, hypothesis 1 was confirmed. Interesting to note is that the direct relationship between prevention focus and job performance was negative and significant (B = -.12, p < .05).
Hypothesis 2 stated that prevention focus would moderate the relationship between contingent reward leadership and job performance of employees such that this relationship would be weaker under high prevention focus and stronger under low prevention focus. In order to test this hypothesis, the interaction term was included in the regression analyses. As shown in table 2, the interaction variable had a significantly negative influence on job performance (B = -.10, p < .05). This finding is illustrated graphically in a two-way
16 non-significant under high prevention focus. According to the results, it can be concluded that the positive relationship between contingent reward leadership and job performance of employees can be strengthened by a low prevention focus of employees and can be weakened by a high prevention focus of employees. Therefore, the second hypothesis was supported by the data.
(Insert figure 1 about here)
DISCUSSION
Summary of results
According to the results, there was a highly significant positive relationship between contingent reward leadership and job performance of employees. Consequently, the first hypothesis was confirmed. Furthermore, the results showed that prevention focus at work moderated the relationship between contingent reward leadership and job performance. Therefore, the results confirmed the second hypothesis. An additionally interesting finding of this research is the direct relationship between prevention focus and job performance which was significantly negative.
Theoretical implications
This study contributes to the literature of leadership and job performance by
17 merely measured by levels of pay based on piece rates and promotions, whereas the current study measured contingent reward as a part of leadership. Moreover, Sims and Szilagyi (1975) found a positive relationship between contingent reward behavior and performance, but
merely for some workgroups (i.e., professional, technical and service groups). Nevertheless, the current study showed that a highly significant relationship between contingent reward and performance holds across different occupations and organizations. Therefore, the results of our study could also be generalized for other occupational types and organizations. An additional strength of this research is the use of leader ratings to measure employees’ job performance. The results of our study supported the findings of Podsakoff et al. (1982), since they also showed that performance-contingent reward behavior was found to affect
subordinate performance significantly and in a positive manner. This finding implies that subordinates’ performance will increase when the supervisor provides diverse types of contingent rewards, such as showing appreciation and recognition.
The inconsistency in previous research regarding the relationship between contingent reward and job performance, indicates that a moderating effect could influence this
18 moderator. The present study contributes to the literature of job performance, since evidence was found for the moderating role of prevention focus on the relationship between contingent reward leadership and job performance. More specifically, contingent reward leadership leads to significantly higher job performance under low prevention focus, but this relationship is non-significant under high prevention focus. This finding has two implications. Firstly, since there was a lack of focus in the contingent reward concept (Camps & Torres, 2011), the current study showed that prevention focus could specify this focus by adding an orientation towards specific behavior, such as in-role job performance. Secondly, this research showed that employees with a low prevention focus are more sensitive to rewards from their supervisors, whereas the reverse is true for individuals with a high prevention focus. Since earlier research did not find any moderating effects, the current study is of great importance for the literature by providing the first reliable evidence that prevention focus could moderate the relationship between contingent reward leadership and job performance.
An additional finding is the direct relationship between prevention focus and job performance, which was significantly negative. This finding confirms research of Shah, Higgins and Friedman (1998) concerning the negative relationship between prevention focus and performance. This implies that an increase in an individuals’ prevention focus would decrease performance.
Managerial implications
19 significantly. Therefore, a training concerning contingent reward leadership for managers could be useful in organizations. Consequently, managers can train their skills and abilities to provide more recognition and appreciation to employees. Another way to increase contingent reward leadership in organizations is to adapt the selection criteria for future managers during the recruitment and selection procedure. For instance, one can include specific leadership skills in the job description in the recruitment advertisement. Moreover, a personality or situational questionnaire can be used during the selection phase to rate and select applicants based on several leadership characteristics, such as contingent reward leadership.
Secondly, it is important for managers to know in which situation contingent reward leadership is most effective. This study showed that the effectiveness of contingent reward leadership depends on whether an employee has a high or low prevention focus. For that reason, managers should pay attention to personal characteristics of employees and learn to recognize the extent to which employees are prevention focused. For employees with a low prevention focus contingent reward leadership could significantly increase job performance. Therefore, it is important that managers could anticipate on personal differences of employees and focus their contingent reward leadership on employees with a low prevention focus. Finally, it is interesting for organizations to know that a high prevention focus among employees has a direct negative effect on job performance. To limit this negative effect, an organization could decide to train their current employees to reduce their prevention focus. Moreover, an organization could also choose to add prevention focus to the selection criteria and screen applicants whether their prevention focus is high or low. During the selection process, a survey can be used to measure an applicants’ prevention focus.
Limitations and future research directions
20 future research will be given. First, due to the time restrictions, this study used cross-sectional data meaning that this research was based on a survey that was conducted at one point in time. Therefore, it was not possible to determine the direction of causality among the variables. For instance, future research could use a questionnaire at multiple points in time to assess
causality between contingent reward leadership and job performance.
Secondly, the possibility of a selection bias cannot be excluded, since supervisors were responsible to list their own subordinates for participating in this study. When supervisors were responsible for more than ten subordinates, they were asked to list the first 10 employees according to alphabetic order. Therefore, it is possible that supervisors only listed their most favorable employees, which could lead to a bias in the results. Future research could limit this bias by organizing the survey procedure differently. For instance, an HR employee could be included in this process to list ten employees per supervisor. Since an HR employee has usually no personal interest to list favorable employees, selection bias will be less likely to occur. However, it remains impossible to exclude selection bias completely, since researchers have no control whether the initiated research procedure is followed by organizations.
Furthermore, the possibility of social desirable answers cannot be excluded, since employees had to evaluate the contingent reward leadership of their supervisors. Besides, the use of Likert scales can lead to a central tendency bias, specifically for measuring contingent reward leadership. A central tendency bias implies that respondents have the tendency to avoid extreme rates and are more likely to give average ratings. Nevertheless, since the respondents were informed that the questionnaire was anonymous and was treated confidentially, these biases might not be a severe issue.
21 Future research could solve these limitations by examining other industries or perform the study in other countries.
Finally, this research is limited to the assessment of merely one moderator. Since this is the first attempt to assess a personal difference as moderator, it would be interesting to examine whether other employee characteristics at work could moderate the relationship between contingent reward and job performance. For instance, it could be interesting for future research to assess whether promotion focus (Higgins, 1998) moderates this relationship in an opposing way. Moreover, additional research could extend the model by including chronic personality characteristics, such as personality characteristics from the Big Five theory.
Conclusion
Following previous research, this research confirmed te highly significant positive relationship between contingent reward leadership and job performance of employees. Moreover, this study took a successfully first step to close the research gap between
22 REFERENCES
Aiken, L.S., & West, S.G. (1991). Multiple Regressions: testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Avolio, B.J. (1999). Full leadership development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M., & Jung, D.I. (1999). Re-examining the components of
transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership
questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Behavior, 72 (4), 441-462. Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M., Jung, D.I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Performance by assessing
transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (2), 207-218.
Barney, J.B., & Wright, P.M. (1998). On becoming a strategic partner: The role of human resources in gaining competitive advantage. Human Resource Management, 37, 31-46. Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. 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.
Borman, W.C., & Motowidlo, S.J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: the meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10, 99-109.
Brendl, C. M., Higgins, E. T., & Lemm, K. M. (1995). Sensitivity to varying gains and losses: The role of self-discrepancies and event framing. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 69, 1028–1051.
Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
23 Bycio, P., Hackett, R.D., & Allen, J.S. (1995). Further assessments of Bass’s (1985)
conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 468-478.
Camps, J. & Torres, F. (2011). Contingent Reward Leader Behavior: Where does it come from? Systems research and Behavioral science, 28 (3), 212-230.
Cherrington, D. J., Reitz, H. J., & Scott, W. E. (1971). Effects of contingent and non- contingent rewards on the relationship between satisfaction and task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 531-536.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavior sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Crowe, E., & Higgins, E.T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 69 (2), 117-132.
Dalal, R.D., Baysinger, M., Brummel, B.J., & Le Breton, J.M. (2012). The relative
importance of employee engagement, other job attitudes and trait affect as predictors of job performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42 (S1), 295-325.
Gray, J. A. (1981). A critique of Eysenck’s theory of personality. In H.J. Eysenck (Ed.) A model for personality, 244-276.
Greene, C. N. (1973). Causal connections among managers' merit pay, job satisfaction, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 58, 95-100.
24 Grover, S.L., & Coppins, A. (2012). The intersection of justice and leadership: Testing a
moderating model of contingent reward and interpersonal fairness. European Management Journal, 30 (6), 490-498.
Higgins, E.T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 1-46.
House, R.J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321-339.
House, R. J., & Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Path goal theory of leadership. Journal of Contemporary Business, 3, 81-97.
House, R.J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J.G. Hunt & L.L. Larson. Leadership: The cutting edge. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Howell, J.M., & Avolio, B. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership,
locus of control and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated business-unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 680-694.
Hunt, J.G., & Schuler, R.S. (1976). Leader reward and sanctions: Behavior relations criteria in a large public utility. Carbondale: Southern Illinois Press.
Idson, L.C., Liberman, N., & Higgins, E.T. (2000). Distinguishing gains from nonlosses and losses from nongains: A regulatory focus perspective on hedonic intensity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36 (3), 252-274.
Johnson, R. E., & Chang, C.-H. (2008b). Development and validation of a work-based regulatory focus scale. Paper presented at the 23rd Annual Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Conference, San Francisco.
25 Mayhew, R. (2013). Importance of employee performance in business organizations. Small Business by Demand Media. Available: http://smallbusiness.chron.com/importance-
employee-performance-business-organizations-1967.html
Podsakoff, P.M., Todor, W.D., & Skov, R. (1982). Effects of leader contingent and noncontingent reward and punishment behaviors on subordinate performance and satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 25 (4), 810-821.
Podsakoff, P.M., Todor, W.D., Grover, R.A., & Huber, V.L. (1984). Situational moderators of leader reward behavior and punishment behaviors: fact or fiction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 21-63.
Podsakoff, P.M., Bommer,W.H., Podsakoff N.P., & MacKenzie, S.B. (2006). Relationships between leader reward and punishment behavior and subordinate attitudes,
perceptions, and behaviors: A meta-analytic review of existing and new research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99, 113–142.
Rothmann, S., & Coetzer, E. (2003). The big five personality dimensions and job performance. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 29, 68-74.
Sackett, P.R., Berry, C.M., Wiemann, S.A., & Laczo, R.M. (2006). Citizenship and counterproductive behavior: Clarifying relations between the two domains. Human Performance, 19 (4), 441-464.
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
Sims, H.P., & Szilagyi, A.D. (1975). Leader reward behavior and subordinate satisfaction and performance. Academy of Management Proceedings, 161-163.
26 performance, absenteeism, and work satisfaction. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53 (3), 195-204.
Tremblay, M., Vandenberghe, C., & Doucet, O. (2012). Relationships between contingent and non-contingent reward and punishment behaviors and subordinates’ perceptions of justice and satisfaction, and evaluation of the moderating influence of trust propensity, pay level, and role ambiguity. Journal of Business & Psychology, 28 (2), 233-249. Wang, G., Oh, I.S., Courtright, S.H., & Colbert A.E. (2011). Transformational leadership and
performance across criteria and levels: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of research. Group & Organization Management, 37, 223–270.
Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M., and Liden, R.C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and Leader-member exchange: a social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40 (1), 82-111.
Williams, K., & O'Reilly, C. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: a review of 40 years of research. In B. Staw, & L. Cummings, Research in organizational
behavior. 70-140. Greenwich: JAI Press.
Wright, P.M., McMahan, G.C., & McWilliams, A. (1994). Human resources and sustained competitive advantage: A resource-based perspective. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 5, 301-326.
Wright, P.M., Dunford, B.B., & Snell, S.A. (2001). Human resources and the resource based view of the firm. Journal of Management, 27, 701-721.
27 TABLE 1
Descriptive statistics and correlations for research variables
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Gender1 1.23 .42 2. 3. Age Organizational Tenure 42.38 13.11 12.61 12.91 -.12 -.21*** .77*** 4. Contingent Reward 3.48 .79 .07 -.07 -.05 (.87) 5. Prevention focus 2.12 .69 -.00 -.14** -.06 -.18*** (.81) 6. Job performance 3.96 .68 .01 -.03 -.03 .22*** -.20*** (.87) 1
Dummy coded, 1 = male, 2 = female * p < .10
** p < .05 *** p < .01
28 TABLE 2
Results of regression analysis
Job performance (leader rating)
Predictors B (SE) B (SE) B (SE)
1 Control variables
Gender1 -.02 (.12) -.02 (.12) -.06 (.12)
Age .00 (.01) -.00 (.01) -.00 (.01)
Organizational tenure -.00 (.01) .00 (.01) .00 (.01)
2 Main effects
Contingent Reward (Z-scored) .14 (.05)*** .12 (.05)*** .12 (.05)*** Prevention Focus (Z-scored) -.12 (.05)** -.12 (.05)**
3 Interaction
Contingent Reward (Z-scored) *
Prevention focus (Z-scored) -.10 (.05)**
R2 .05 .08 .10
1
Dummy coded, 1 = male, 2 = female * p < .10
** p < .05 *** p < .01
29 FIGURE 1
Two-way interaction plot
2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5
Low Contingent Reward High Contingent Reward
