1
Regulatory focus in problem recognition: The effect of leader
regulatory focus and employee regulatory strategies
Master Thesis, MSc Human Resource Management
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics & Business
June 16, 2019
Stan ter Beke
S2761432
s.ter.beke@student.rug.nl
Supervisor:
T. Vriend
2
REGULATORY FOCUS IN PROBLEM RECOGNITION: THE EFFECT OF
LEADER REGULATORY FOCUS AND EMPLOYEE REGULATORY
STRATEGIES
ABSTRACT
Creative problem solving is a very popular topic in previous research. There is little known about the first phase of this process: the problem recognition phase. The problem recognition phase is crucial for organizations to deal with changes and ill-defined problems. This phase is important because solutions become of higher quality and originality when a problem is recognized. There is also little known about the influence of leader regulatory focus on this process. This is important because a leader can influence, by setting minimum or maximum goals, how a problem is viewed by an employee. I examine the influence of leaders on employees in the type of problems they recognize (i.e., opportunities or threats). To test this, an experimental study will be conducted. My findings show that the promotion focus of a leader (maximal goals) leads to an eagerness strategy of an employee, resulting in problem recognition of opportunities. The prevention focus of a leader (minimal goals) leads to a vigilance strategy of an employee, resulting in problem recognition of threats. I did not find a moderation effect for the relation between leader regulatory focus and employee regulatory strategies. A number of implications and suggestions for further research are discussed at the end of the study.
Keywords: leader regulatory focus, employee regulatory strategies, problem
3
1. INTRODUCTION
Today, all organizations have to deal with rapid technological changes and global competition. All these organizations face several challenges: designing new business strategies, achieving a cost advantage by developing a sufficient supply chain configuration, and producing innovations to get more profit (Baer, Dirks, & Nickerson, 2013). Because of these rapid changes and challenges, uncertainty arises. This results in multiple ill-defined problems that organizations are confronted with (Reiter-Palmon & Illies, 2004). There are two kinds of problems, well-defined and ill-defined. In this research, I only pay attention to ill-defined problems, because well-defined problems are relatively easy to solve. As the increasing problems within organizations become more complex, creative problem solving becomes more important as well (Reiter-Palmon & Illies, 2004). Many studies did research about the concept creative problem solving, but most research focused on generation and implementation of solutions (Pretz, Naples, & Sternberg, 2003). However, as stated by Basadur, Ellsperman, and Evans (1994) there is not just problem solving and implementation. That is, a problem must first be recognized before it can be solved. Ill-defined problems do not begin with a clear statement, therefore most problems must be recognized, defined and represented (Pretz, et al., 2003). However, there is a lack of research about the first phase of the problem-solving process: problem recognition (Reiter-Palmon & Robinson, 2009; Smith, 1989; Basadur, Ellspermann, & Evans, 1994). Problem recognition can be defined as a process where evidence of the problem is shared, facts and opinions are clarified and the existence of the problem is challenged (Basadur et al., 1994).
4 recognition is the initial phase in the problem-solving process and it is important for the subsequent phases, both for the problem-formulation phase (definition, conceptualization, and structure of the problem) and for the problem-solving phase (developing solutions, implementation plans, and the implementation of solutions) (Basadur et al., 1994). Third, previous researches have shown that when individuals recognize and construct a problem, the solutions are of higher originality and quality compared to those individuals who did not (Reiter-Palmon, Mumford, O’Conner Boes, & Runco, 1997). Thus, problem recognition is critical to solve problems efficiently and accurately, especially in case of ill-defined problems (Pretz et al., 2003). Reitman-Palmon and Robinson (2009) call for more research on problem recognition in connection with individual differences.
5 problem recognition phase (Mumford & Connelly, 1991). Leadership plays an important role in shaping individual differences as well as in employees’ motivation (Parker, Bindl, & Strauss, 2010). In other words, leaders may influence employees’ motivation in how they recognize problems. Leader regulatory focus states that the behavior of a leader differs due to the focus they have (Higgins, 1998). Promotion-focused leaders are individuals who hold self-direction and stimulation values, prevention-focused leaders are individuals who hold tradition, security, and conformity values (Kark & van Dijk, 2007). Leaders need to provide strategies and goals that empower employees to gather environmental information and to recognize problems cues (Wu, McMullen, Neubert, & Yi, 2008). Promotion-focused leaders set maximal goals, whereas prevention-focused leaders set minimal goals (Kark & Van Dijk, 2007). These different goals might influence the way how employees approach problems situations and the recognition of problem cues (i.e., opportunities vs. threats).
Leaders might influence employees’ motivation to recognize problems through their regulatory strategies and goals. The goal of a promotion-focused leader is to change and develop. In contrast, the goal of a prevention-focused leader is to ensure safety and security (Kark & van Dijk, 2007). Promotion focus stimulates eagerness, allowing employees to focus more on innovation and creativity, whereas prevention focus stimulates employees’ vigilance and stability (Förster, Friedman, & Liberman, 2004). Eager employees handle problems in a way like they want to engage in a problem and take opportunities and are more attentive to positive feedback (van Dijk & Kluger, 2004; Bryant & Dunford, 2008). Therefore, they are eager to recognize opportunities of problems. Employees with a vigilance strategy prefer stability and they want to achieve their minimal goals (Higgins, 1997). They are handling problems because they try to assure against mistakes and errors, and they are more attentive to negative feedback. Therefore, they are vigilant to recognize threats of problems.
6 employees who possess similar characteristics are more likely to develop high quality decisions and motivation. Individuals experience regulatory fit when they pursue a goal that fits their chronic regulatory orientation (Petrou, Demerouti, & Hafner, 2015). The chronic regulatory focus of employees is defined as employees’ characteristic way to approach goals and is based on two self-regulatory orientations (Higgins, 1997). The promotion orientation is characterized by strategies of approaching gains, whereas the prevention orientation is characterized by strategies of avoiding losses. For promotion-focused employees, regulatory fit ensures that they present their job performance in terms of the desired level that should be achieved for example. For prevention-focused employees, regulatory fit entails presenting their job performance goals as undesired outcomes that should be avoided (Petrou et al., 2015). There is regulatory fit when a leader or organization provides what an employee wants. Experiencing fit makes a message more relevant and it makes positive attitudes more positive (Avnet & Higgins, 2006). Therefore, promotion-focused employees with promotion orientation tasks and prevention-focused employees with prevention orientation tasks are expected to achieve favorable outcomes. Thus, if a leader and an employee share the same orientation, employee chronic regulatory focus might strengthen the eagerness or vigilance strategies of an employee.
7 employees’ eagerness or vigilance will be strengthened. To test the relationships (see Figure 1), I will collect the data by means of an experimental study.
This study contributes to the research field of creative problem-solving. Especially, it may expand the field of problem recognition. As already mentioned, it is important to focus on the problem recognition phase because it influences the following phases of the problem-solving process. It may also expand this field, because I will make a distinction between the different types of problem cues (i.e., opportunities vs. threats). Moreover, the literature on the regulatory focus theory is contributed, both leader and employee regulatory foci are involved in this research with regard to the problem recognition process. Previous research has shown that the regulatory focus of a leader influences the regulatory focus of employees (Kark & Van Dijk, 2007). This study contributes to the literature on leader regulatory focus by improving our understanding of the motivational effects of leader promotion- and prevention focus. This research also contributes to the literature about underlying processes of employee regulatory strategies and the moderating process of employee chronic regulatory focus, by exploring the promotion and prevention focused views of employees.
8 organizational goals.
This paper is structured as follows. First, the theoretical definitions will be given and the hypotheses will be provided, followed by the methods section, results, discussion, and the conclusion. Theoretical and practical implications and suggestions for future research are provided in the discussion section.
---
Insert Figure 1
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
2.1. Regulatory Focus Theory and Multilevel Perspective
9 insecurity).
People can strive for similar goals. However, to achieve these goals dissimilar behavior can be used. An individual can prefer risks over safety, while another person can prefer safety over risks during goal striving, so the strategies and tactics used to pursue these goals contrast (Johnson, Smith, Wallace, Hill, & Baron, 2015). Individuals can act on multiple levels in regulatory focus to achieve their goals. There are three levels of motivational abstraction in which regulatory focus operates independently; system, strategic, and tactical (Scholer & Higgins, 2008).
The system level of regulatory focus relates to individual preferences of the end state and the overarching goals that an individual possesses (Higgins, 1997). At this level, regulatory focus operates as an orientation, which serves as a general reference point. The system level arises from the idea that people have general goal preferences classified by pleasure and pain, consistent across situations (Higgins, 1997, 2000). Johnson et al. (2015) described that one individual is promotion focused, this individual anticipates as a result of a need for advancement and growth, whereas the prevention-focused individual anticipates as a result of a need for security and responsibility. The pain for promotion-focused individuals is when they do not succeed, whereas prevention-focused individuals feel the pain when they fail. The pleasure for promotion-focused people is when they succeed, whereas prevention-focused people feel pleasure when they do not fail.
10 Successful projects are irrelevant, the most important thing is that projects do not fail (Johnson et al., 2015). The strategic level consisting of general means is independent of the system level (i.e., end states) and tactical level (i.e., tactics).
The tactical level is based on self-regulatory tactics used in specific situations (Scholer & Higgins, 2008). Individuals might approach matches to desired end-states or they might avoid mismatches to undesired end-states. Tactics reflect these specific ways in which individuals approach or avoid the end-states in a particular context. Tactics are dependent of context, approach tactics in a specific situation are more likely to follow from approach strategies, whereas avoidance tactics are more likely to follow from avoidance strategies.“Tactics are an instantiation of strategy in a given context” (Scholer & Higgins, 2008: 490). That is, tactics enact strategies. Individuals may adjust their tactics depending on the situation (Johnson et al., 2015).
2.2. Leader Regulatory Focus
11 and develop, by using creative thinking and exploring new behavior. In contrast, the goal of a prevention-focused leader is to ensure safety and security, maintaining routines and the status quo. At this system level a leader acts from his or her orientation, this is their general reference point. In sum, according to Kark and Van Dijk (2007), the chronic regulatory focus of a leader can determine leaders’ behavior.
12 and to focus the attention of their employees to important specific outcomes for organizational effectiveness and success.
2.3. Employee regulatory strategies
Regulatory focus theory suggests that different desired end-states can be achieved by different pathways (Higgins, 1997). For example, a good exam grade is the desired end-state. Individuals could study hard at the library the days before (move toward desired end-states) or could reject the invitations to go out with friends, and having some drinks the night before the exam (moving away from undesired end-states) (Higgins, 1998). Thus, differences in individuals’ approach and avoidance strategies might influence the process.
13 2.4. Leader Regulatory Focus and Employee Regulatory Strategies
Promotion and prevention focus have different consequences for decision making, and for behavior and performance of an individual (Kark & Van Dijk, 2007). Recently, Kark and Van Dijk (2007) and Wu et al. (2008) pointed out that employees’ regulatory orientation at a given point in time is highly influenced by leaders’ regulatory focus. The actions a leader takes and the regulatory goals he or she sets for his or her employees are decisive for further behavior and motivation of these employees. According to Kark and Van Dijk (2007), promotion-focused leaders set maximal goals (i.e., ideals, growth, and achievements), whereas prevention-focused leaders set minimal goals (i.e., non-losses, responsibilities, security). The leader creates a specific context by setting these specific goals. This context gives an indication of how employees should behave, leaders can make their employees engage in their regulatory foci (Wu et al., 2008). The tactics of the employees are dependent of the context the leader created (Johnson et al., 2015). A promotion-focused leader creates a context in which employees approach matches to desired end-states, whereas a prevention-focused leader creates a context in which employees avoid mismatches to undesired end-states (Brockner & Higgins, 2001). Eager employees follow approach strategies by using approach tactics in the specific situation of approaching desired end-states. In contrast, vigilant employees follow avoidance tactics in the specific situation of avoiding undesired end-states (Johnson et al., 2015). In conclusion, leader regulatory focus might result in two different regulatory strategies of employees. The promotion focus of a leader might result in an approach-related behavior (i.e., eagerness strategy), whereas the prevention focus of a leader might result in an avoidance-related behavior (i.e., employee vigilance strategy).
14
leader prevention focus.
Hypothesis 1B: Leader prevention focus will lead to more employee vigilance strategies than
leader promotion focus.
2.5. Moderating effect of Employee Chronic Regulatory Focus
15 promotion orientation. That is, individuals who hold tradition, conformity and security values contribute to a chronic prevention focus, whereas individuals who hold stimulation and self-direction values contribute to a chronic promotion focus (Kark & Van Dijk, 2007). Shah, Higgins, and Friedman (1998) stated that individuals with a chronic promotion orientation prefer task goals with a promotion focus, whereas individuals with a chronic prevention orientation prefer task goals with a prevention focus. Multiple studies show that a fit between chronic regulatory focus and regulatory strategies to achieve these task goals makes individuals feel right (Camacho, Higgins, & Luger, 2003). In addition, this feeling has a positive effect on cognition, motivation, and engagement (Spiegel, Grant-Pillow, & Higgins, 2004). Chronic promotion-focused employees are most inspired by leaders who use strategies to achieve success, whereas chronic prevention-focused employees are most activated by negative role models where strategies for avoiding failures are used (Lockwood, Jordan, & Kunda, 2002). This results in a stronger eagerness strategy at promotion-focused employees, and in a stronger vigilance strategy at prevention-focused employees. In sum, chronic regulatory focus might strengthen the relation between leader regulatory focus and employee strategies. Therefore, an employee chronic promotion focus will strengthen the effect of a promotion-focused leader on the eagerness strategy of an employee. The enhancement of the eagerness state of the employee will result in an increasing view perspective of positive information cues in recognizing problems (i.e., opportunities). An employee chronic prevention focus will strengthen the effect of the prevention focus of a leader on employees’ vigilance strategy. The increasing state of vigilance will lead to more focus on negative information cues in recognizing problems (i.e., threats).
Based on the above, the following hypotheses are formulated:
Hypothesis 2A: Employee chronic promotion focus will moderate the relation between leader
16
between leader promotion focus and employee eagerness strategies.
Hypothesis 2B: Employee chronic prevention focus will moderate the relation between leader
regulatory focus and employee regulatory strategies, such that it will strengthen the relation between leader prevention focus and employee vigilance strategies.
2.6. Problem recognition
17 the solution will be more original and of higher quality. Individuals differ in their ability to recognize problems, but this cannot be explained by intelligence (Smilansky, 1984). Most of all, there is not only one singular solution to an ill-defined problem but many possible solutions. In other words, an ill-defined problem can be interpreted in different ways and is also hard to recognize. As mentioned above, a problem can be defined as a gap between the current and the (un)desired state (Evans, 1991). The interpretation depends on the personal approach of the problem solver and has an effect on the paths towards accomplishing the desired and undesired states (Pretz et al., 2003, Reiter-Palom & Illies, 2004). I assert that especially within ill-defined problems, where multiple solutions and interpretations are possible, problems might be viewed in different ways, namely in terms of opportunities and threats.
18 addition, vigilant employees try to avoid mistakes, that is why they pick up more threats (Ciuchta et al., 2016; Lockwood et al., 2002). Employees with an eagerness strategy are more relying on positive information cues (i.e., opportunities), because they strive to maximal goals to achieve success (Ciuchta et al., 2016; Lockwood et al., 2002).
As employee eagerness and vigilance strategies result in differences in the strategic manner of decision making, I also expect that it influences the way in which employees recognize problems. Due to the differences in the strategies, eager employees are mainly focused on positive outcomes, whereas vigilant employees are predominantly focused on negative outcomes, I predict that favorable outcomes (i.e., opportunities) are likely to be recognized by eager employees and unfavorable outcomes (i.e., threats) are more likely to be recognized by vigilant employees.
In brief, I formulated the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 3A: An employee eagerness strategy results in the recognition of problems in terms
of opportunities.
Hypothesis 3B: An employee vigilance strategy results in the recognition of problems in terms of threats.
19 threats) (Brockner & Higgins, 2001; Ciuchta et al., 2016; Crowe & Higgins, 1997). The influence of a leader and his regulatory focus in the problem recognition phase is important because leaders should provide employees enough time for the process of problem recognition and leaders need to draw the attention of their employees to the importance of this process, and also the need to think in multiple perspectives (Reiter-Palmon & Illies, 2004). As mentioned before, leader regulatory focus might have an effect on the strategies of employees, therefore it also influences the problem recognition process. In brief, I expect that leader promotion focus will lead to employee eagerness strategies, and this might stimulate employees to recognize problems in opportunities, whereas leader prevention focus will lead to employee vigilance strategies, and this might stimulate employees to recognize problems in threats. Based on these expectations, I formulated the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 4A: Leader promotion focus will lead to more employees recognizing problems in
terms of opportunities through employee eagerness strategies than leader prevention focus.
Hypothesis 4B: Leader prevention focus will lead to more employees recognizing problems in
terms of threats through employee vigilance strategies than leader promotion focus.
3. METHODS
3.1. Participants and design
20 attention checks. They answered the question: “What is the name of your supervisor?” wrong. Of the 230 participants, ranging in the age from 18 to 35 (MAge = 21.14, SDAge = 2.72), 132 were
female and 98 were male. The study was conducted in English, so every nationality could participate. The largest part was Dutch (30.8%), while the other nationalities were English (7.3%), German (9.6%), Chinese (7.4%), Indonesian (8.5%), Romanian (4.3%), Bulgarian (4.7%), French (3.4%), and Others (24%). 103 participants were first year Bachelor students (44.8%), 44 participants were second year Bachelors students (19.1%), 45 third year Bachelors students (19.6%), whereas 36 participants were Master students (16.5%). The participants received money or course credits as reward.
3.2. Procedure
21 randomly assigned to one of the two messages. One message was promotion oriented and the other prevention oriented (See Appendix D for messages). After the manipulation message participants received an e-mail consisted of a message about trends of the market (external) and of the company (internal). 1Eight trends were presented in this message (Trends message in Appendix E). The participants were asked to indicate for each trend the extent (7-point Likert scale) to which they think it might form an opportunity or a threat for StanEl. They were asked to explain why they do or do not see the trend as an opportunity or threat. They also had to indicate their choice on a 7-point Likert scale, 1 is an opportunity and 7 a threat. After this, the participants were told to indicate the extent to which they (dis)agree with some statements. An eagerness/vigilance measure was represented. The participant was told that people use different approaches in choosing trends as an opportunity or threat. The measure of eagerness and vigilance strategies contains a variety of such approaches, so participants had to indicate the extent on a 7-point Likert scale. Next, I gave the participants a task about their manager Robert Jones with statements that describes how Robert motivated them in the StanEl tasks, again a 7-point Likert scale is used. After giving these answers, the participants were asked to explain what might be the topic of our study, and what their demographics are. Finally, participants were debriefed and thanked for their participation.
3.3. Manipulation
Leader regulatory focus. Leader regulatory focus was manipulated both through the manager profiles (Appendix C), where promotion and prevention goals were presented and through the message of the manager Robert. In the promotion message, promotion orientated language is used, whereas prevention orientated language is used in the prevention message.
22 The promotion message entails the focus on taking risks, growth, eager behavior, progress, and gains. The prevention message mentioned that participants have to be vigilant, do not take risks and to be careful in making decisions (See Appendix D for manipulation in leader regulatory focus messages).
In addition to the manipulation, a manipulation check is used. The participants were asked to indicate for four promotion statements and four prevention statements the extent to which each statement describes how the manager Robert motivated them in the StanEl tasks, using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (‘strongly disagree’) to 7 (‘strongly agree’). Every statement starts with the sentence: “During the StanEl tasks, my manager Robert Jones motivated me to primarily focus on…” The four promotion statements are: “achieving positive outcomes”, “achieving success”, “my aspirations and ideals”, “fulfilling my tasks as successful as possible” (α = .78). The four prevention statements are: “avoiding negative outcomes”, “avoiding failure”, “my duties and responsibilities”, and “fulfilling my task as correct as possible” (α = .85).
3.4. Measures
Employee chronic regulatory focus. To measure employee chronic regulatory focus, the measure developed by Lockwood et al. (2002) is used. Participants were asked to rate eighteen statements, using a Likert-scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The measure included nine items measuring chronic promotion focus (e.g., “I frequently imagine how I will achieve my hopes and aspirations”) (α = .81) and nine items measuring chronic prevention focus (e.g., “In general, I am focused on preventing negative events in my life”) (α = .85). All 18 items measuring chronic promotion and prevention focus are shown in Appendix F.
23 eagerness vs. vigilance), a scale made by Vriend et al. (2018) is used. There are three statements about promotion focus and three statements about prevention focus. The Likert scale ranging from 1 “fully disagree” to 7 “fully agree” is used. All statements start with the sentence: “To attain my goals …”. The promotion-focused statements are: “I enthusiastically embrace all opportunities”, “I am eager to use all possible ways or means”, and “I am eager to take all necessary actions” (α = .79). The prevention-focused statements are: “I am concerned with making mistakes”, “I am cautious about going down the wrong road”, and “I am vigilant and play it safe” (α = .85).
Problem recognition. I made a discrepancy between statements about problem recognition poses opportunities and problem recognition poses threats. I asked participants to rate each trend as an opportunity or threat (Appendix E), using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from extremely unlikely (1) to extremely likely (7). After this, all trends were displayed and the participants were asked to rate on a 7-point Likert scale in which they think it is an opportunity (1) or a threat (7). In addition, participants were asked to explain why they do or do not see the trend as an opportunity and why they do or do not see the trend as a threat.
24
4. RESULTS
4.1. Manipulation Check
Two independent sample T-test were performed. First, leader regulatory focus as independent variable and the questions measuring the extent of promotion statements as dependent variable. There was a main effect of leader regulatory focus on the promotion focus statements, F(1,228) = 34.95, p < .001. In the leader promotion focused condition, participants indicated to a greater extent at the promotion related statements (M = 5.50, SD = .82) than at the prevention related statements (M = 4.2, SD = 1.30). Secondly, leader regulatory focus as independent variable as well, the questions measuring the extent of prevention statements as dependent variable. There was a main effect of leader regulatory focus on the prevention focus statements F(1, 228) = 22.41, p < .001. In the leader prevention focused condition, participants indicated to a greater extent at the prevention related statements (M = 6.21, SD = .85) than at the promotion related statements (M = 4.5, SD = .82). This suggests that the test is successful manipulated.
4.2. Descriptive Analyses
25 negatively and significantly correlated with vigilance (r = -.31, p < .01). Besides, the correlation between eagerness and recognition of opportunities is positive and significant (r = .31, p < .01). Vigilance and the recognition of threats are positively and significantly correlated as well (r = .22, p < .01). Furthermore, the correlation between employee chronic promotion focus and eagerness strategy was positive and significant (r = .29, p < .01), even as the employee chronic prevention focus and vigilance strategy (r = .43, p < .01).
---
Insert Table 1
---
4.3. Hypotheses testing
26
SD = 1.21), a one-way ANOVA is performed as well. This one-way ANOVA is significant F(1,
228) = 24,53, p < .001. In addition, the effect of the leader regulatory focus on the vigilance strategy is also significant F(1, 228) = 24,19, p < .001. Thus there is a difference between the promotion focus condition (M = 4.04, SD = 1.34) and the prevention focus condition (M = 4.92,
SD = 1.4). The test to know the effect of the difference in employees’ eagerness state (M = 5.07, SD = 1.12) on the recognition of opportunities (M = 5.40, SD = .75) is significant F(16, 213) =
2,87, p < .001. The effect of the difference in employees’ vigilance (M = 4.47, SD = 1.43) on the recognition of threats (M = 4.21, SD = .82) is not significant F(18,211) = 1.22, p > .10. It may have effect, however this effect is not proven to be significantly different form zero. To examine the indirect effects of leader regulatory focus on problem recognition mediated by employee regulatory strategies, I used PROCESS macro for SPSS by Andrew F. Hayes (2013). I used PROCESS macro model 4. All variables are mean centered before performing the analysis because this procedure enhanced the interpretability of the data. If you do not mean center the data, you will get different results for your direct effects. I estimated two models in which the mediation effect is analyzed and two models to analyze the moderation effect of chronic regulatory focus in the relationship between leader regulatory focus and employee regulatory strategies. While analyzing these models, I controlled for age, gender, promotion focus trait, and prevention focus trait. The results of the mediation analyses are displayed in Table 2.
27 Hypothesis 1B. Hypothesis 1B stated that leader prevention focus will lead to more employee vigilance strategies than leader promotion focus. Leader prevention focus was significantly and negatively related to employee vigilance strategy (B = -.90, t(226) = -4.99, p < .001). This means that leader regulatory focus has an influence on vigilance strategies, in such that employees use vigilance strategies in a leader prevention focus condition. Therefore, I found support for hypothesis 1B.
Hypothesis 2A. Hypothesis 2A stated that employee chronic promotion focus moderates the relationship between leader promotion focus and eagerness, such that when employee chronic promotion focus is high, the relationship between leader promotion focus and eagerness will be strengthened. However, the interaction effect between leader promotion focus and employee chronic promotion focus was negatively and not significant (B = -.22,
t(224) = -1.22, p > 0.10). Therefore, I found no evidence to support hypothesis 2A.
Hypothesis 2B. Hypothesis 2B stated that employee chronic prevention focus moderates the relationship between leader prevention focus and vigilance, such that when employee chronic prevention focus is high, the relationship between leader prevention focus and vigilance will be strengthened. Nevertheless, the results did show a negatively and insignificantly interaction effect (B = -1.05, t(224) = -.73, p > 0.10). Thus, hypothesis 2B was not supported.
Hypothesis 3A. Hypothesis 3A stated that an employee eagerness strategy results in the recognition of problems in terms of opportunities. Eagerness was positively and significantly related to recognition of opportunities (B = .17, t(225) = 3.90, p < .01). Therefore, hypothesis 3A was supported.
28 Therefore, hypothesis 3B was supported.
Hypothesis 4A. Hypothesis 4A stated that leader promotion focus will lead to more employees recognizing problems in terms of opportunities through employee eagerness strategies than leader prevention focus. Hypotheses 1A and 3A were supported, such that the indirect effects are significant. Besides, the results showed a significant direct effect of leader promotion focus on recognizing problems in opportunities (B = .35, t(226) = 11.83, p < .001). This means that leader regulatory focus has an influence on recognition of problems in opportunities, in such that in a leader promotion focus condition employees recognize opportunities. To conclude, I did find full mediation effect of employee eagerness strategies in the model with leader regulatory focus and recognition of opportunities as outcome variable (eagerness effect = .12, SE = .04, 95% CI = (.05, .21)), thereby hypothesis 4A was fully supported.
Hypothesis 4B. Hypothesis 4B stated that leader prevention focus will lead to more employees recognizing problems in terms of threats through employee vigilance strategies than leader prevention. Hypotheses 1B and 3B were supported, thus the indirect effects in the model are significant. As expected, leader prevention focus is also significantly and negatively related to recognition of threats (B = -.39, t(226) = -3.67, p < .001). This means that leader regulatory focus has an influence on recognition of problems in threats, in such that in a leader prevention focus condition employees recognize threats. In brief, a significant effect of leader prevention focus on problem recognition in terms of threats mediated by employee vigilance strategies was found (effect vigilance = -.09, SE = 0.4, 95% CI (-.59, -.18)), thereby hypothesis 4B was fully supported.
---
Insert Table 2
29 4.4 Supplementary analyses
As the expected interaction effects mentioned above were all insignificant, I decided to switch the moderator to another path. The new hypothesis stated that employee chronic promotion focus moderates the relationship between employee eagerness strategies and recognition of opportunities, such that when employee chronic promotion focus is high, the relationship between eagerness and recognition of opportunities is strengthened. I used PROCESS macro model 14. However, the interaction effect between eagerness and employee chronic promotion focus was positive, but not significant (B = .07, t(225) = 1.31, p > .10). I decided to split the recognition of opportunities in recognition of opportunities in internal trends and external trends. Thus, the moderation of employee chronic promotion focus on the relationship between eagerness and recognition of opportunities in internal trends is analyzed. Nevertheless, the interaction effect between eagerness and recognition of opportunities in internal trends is positively, but not significantly related (B = .04, t(225) = .54, p > .10). The moderation effect of employee chronic promotion focus on the relationship between eagerness and recognition of opportunities in external trends was positive and insignificant as well (B = .10, t(225) = 1.37, p > .10). In conclusion, I did not found a significant moderation effect in the supplementary analyses, so no evidence was found to support the new hypotheses.
31 insignificant as well (B = -.09, t(224) = -.62, p > .10). In conclusion, in this three-way interaction there is no support for a significant moderation effect.
5. DISCUSSION
32 by employees. The mediating role of eagerness in the relationship between leader promotion focus and problem recognition of opportunities was positive and significant as well. Thus, support was found for hypothesis 4A.
The indirect effect of leader prevention focus on employee vigilance strategies was negatively and significantly related, thus there was evidence to support hypothesis 1B, this is in line with the expectations. In addition, the indirect effect of employee vigilance strategies on recognition of problems in terms of threats was positive and significant. Thereby, I found support for hypothesis 3B. The direct effect of leader prevention focus on problem recognition was negatively and significantly related, indicating that the prevention focus of a leader influences the problem recognition in terms of threats by employees. The mediating role of vigilance in the relationship between leader prevention and problem recognition of threats was significant. Therefore, hypothesis 4B was also supported.
In addition, I expected that employee chronic regulatory focus (i.e., chronic promotion focus vs. chronic prevention focus) would moderate the relation between leader regulatory focus (i.e., promotion vs. prevention focus) and employee regulatory strategies (i.e., eagerness vs. vigilance). However, I found no support for hypotheses 2A and 2B. To gather the data for the moderation I used a general measure of Lockwood et al. (2002). This measure consists of nine promotion focus statements and nine prevention focus statements. In this research, one prevention-focused statement was not displayed in the survey. I took this into account while analyzing the data, but this failure might have a small influence on the interaction effect between leader prevention focus and employee chronic prevention focus.
33 vigilance) and recognition of problems (i.e., opportunities vs. threats). Unfortunately, both the interaction effects between employee eagerness strategies and employee chronic promotion focus and between employee vigilance strategies and employee chronic prevention focus were not significant. Thus, I found no moderation effects.
Problem description is an important process variable to recognize the problem (Cowan, 1986). In this research, the survey divided the problems in internal and external trends. Problem description consists of identifying the problem situation (Cowan, 1986). A supplementary analysis is done to analyze the difference between internal and external trends. I decided to split the recognition of problems in recognition of internal and external trends, for both opportunities and threats, such that the moderation of employee chronic regulatory focus (i.e., chronic promotion and chronic prevention) on the relationship between employee strategies (i.e., eagerness vs. vigilance) and recognition of problems (i.e., opportunities vs. threats) in internal and external trends is analyzed. I found no significance in both moderation effects.
34 relationship between leader regulatory focus and eagerness will be strengthened.
5.1 Theoretical implications
35 conceptualization creates new insights in the leader regulatory focus field interacting with employee regulatory strategies.
Wu et al. (2008) called for more research about the effects of leader regulatory focus on their employees. To answer the call, the effects of leader promotion focus on recognition of opportunities, through the eagerness strategies of employees is analyzed. The effect of leader prevention focus on recognition of threats, through the vigilance strategies of employees is analyzed. I found that leader regulatory focus influences the recognition of problems in terms of opportunities and threats, and the strategies employees take to approach ill-defined problems. In other words, employees are eager to recognize problems in terms of opportunities when their promotion-focused leaders set maximal goals. On the other hand, when prevention-focused leaders set minimal goals, employees are vigilant to pay attention to threats.
Previous research investigated the underlying motivational processes of individuals regulatory strategies on problem construction, idea generation and implementation, and evaluation of the idea (Herman & Palmon, 2011; Friedman & Förster, 2001; Reiter-Palom, Mumford, & Threlfall, 1998). There is little known about the relation between individuals’ regulatory strategies and problem recognition. This study revealed that employees with a promotion focus will focus more on positive problem cues (i.e., opportunities), whereas prevention-focused employees are more likely to focus on negative problem cues (i.e., threats). Thereby, this study contributes to the research of Ciuchta et al. (2016).
36 employees, and in a stronger vigilance strategy at prevention-focused employees. I did not find a moderation effect of employee chronic regulatory focus in the relation between both leader regulatory focus and employee strategies, and employee strategies and problem recognition, such that it will not strengthen both relationships. Thus, in comparison with previous research has this study contrary outcomes.
5.2 Limitations and future research
37 In addition, the moderation effect in this research was not significant, that is the interaction effect between leader prevention focus and employee chronic prevention focus. Reflecting to the multilevel perspective mentioned in the theory section, employee chronic regulatory focus operates at the system level. Scholer and Higgins (2008) described that at the system level chronic promotion-focused individuals are regulating to a desired end-state, whereas chronic prevention-focused individuals regulate to undesired end-states. Nevertheless, there are different ways of regulating to undesired end-states. One can either strategically approach mismatches to move away from undesired end-states, or strategically avoid matches (Higgins, Roney, Crowe, & Hymes, 1994). The measure of Lockwood et al. (2002) focuses mainly on avoiding matches, therefore this might explain why employee chronic prevention focus did not moderate the relation between leader regulatory focus and employee vigilance strategies. Another explanation might be that the interaction effect in our moderation model is between leader regulatory focus and employee chronic regulatory focus. According to Scholer and Higgins (2008), there are more benefits when there is a fit between individuals chronic regulatory focus and the approach or avoidance strategies of employees. An individual with a chronic promotion focus is likely to represent an end-state as an ideal. On the other hand, a chronic prevention-focused individual is likely to represent an end-state as an ought. Thereby, in further research a replacement of the interaction effect has to be analyzed.
5.3. Practical implications
38 problem recognition phase. The findings show that leaders might influence how and why employees approach problems.
Furthermore, problem recognition is the first phase in the creative problem-solving process, therefore employees recognizing problems first might have a major effect on the solutions they generate (Pretz et al., 2003). The results suggest that the regulatory focus of a leader can influence how employees approach problems. By setting maximal goals (promotion focus), leaders influence the eagerness strategies of an employee, and thereby their attention to problems in terms of opportunities. By setting minimal goals (prevention focus), leaders influence the vigilance strategies of an employee, and thereby their attention to problems in terms of threats.
6. CONCLUSION
39
REFERENCES
Agre, G. P. (1982). The concept of problem. Educational Studies, 13(2), 121-142. Avnet, T., & Higgins, E. T. (2006). How regulatory fit affects value in consumer choices and
opinions. Journal of Marketing Research, 43, 1–10.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44(9), 1175.
Basadur, M., Ellspermann, S. J., & Evans, G. W. (1994). A new methodology for formulating ill-structured problems. Omega, 22(6), 627-645.
Baer, M. (2012). Putting creativity to work: The implementation of creative ideas in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 55(5), 1102-1119.
Baer, M., Dirks, K. T., & Nickerson, J. A. (2013). Microfoundations of strategic problem formulation. Strategic Management Journal, 34(2), 197-214.
Brockner, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2001). Regulatory focus theory: Implications for the study of emotions at work. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 86(1), 35-66.
Bryant, P., & Dunford, R. (2008). The influence of regulatory focus on risky decision-making. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57(2), 335–359.
Camacho, C. J., Higgins, E. T., & Luger, L. (2003). Moral value transfer from regulatory fit: what feels right is right and what feels wrong is wrong. Journal of personality and social psychology, 84(3), 498.
Ciuchta, M.P., Letwin, C., Stevenson, R.M., & McMahon, S.R. (2016). Regulatory focus and information cues in a crowdfunding context. Applied Psychology, 65(3), 490-514. Cornwell, J. F., & Higgins, E. T. (2016). Eager feelings and vigilant reasons: Regulatory focus differences in judging moral wrongs. Journal of experimental psychology: general, 145(3), 338.
Cowan, D. A. (1986). Developing a process model of problem recognition. “Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 763-776.
Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69, 117–132.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity. New York: Harper Collins.
Evans, J. R. (1991). Creative thinking in the decision and management sciences. South-Western Pub.
Förster, J., Friedman, R. S., & Liberman, N. (2004). Temporal construal effects on abstract and concrete thinking: consequences for insight and creative cognition. Journal of personality and social psychology, 87(2), 177.
Förster, J., Higgins, E. T., & Idson, L. C. (1998). Approach and avoidance strength during goal attainment: regulatory focus and the" goal looms larger" effect. Journal of personality and social psychology, 75(5), 1115.
Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2001). The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 1001-1013.
40 Social and Behavioral Science: Question framing and response consistency, 11: 37– 48.
Haws, K. L., Bearden, W. O., & Dholakia, U. M. (2012). Situational and trait interactions among goal orientations. Marketing Letters, 23(1), 47-60.
Herman, A., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2011). The Effect of Regulatory Focus on Idea Generation and Idea Evaluation. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(1), 13–20. Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280. Higgins, E. T. (2000). Making a good decision: Value from fit. American Psychologist, 55,
1217–1230.
Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Advances in experimental social psychology, 30, Academic Press. 1-46. Higgins, E. T. (2005). Value from regulatory fit. Current directions in psychological science,
14(4), 209-213.
Higgins, E. T., Friedman, R. S., Harlow, R. E., Idson, L. C., Ayduk, O. N., & Taylor, A. (2001) Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus prevention pride. European Journal of Social Psychology 31(1), 3-23. Higgins, E. T., Roney, C. J. R., Crowe, E., & Hymes, C. (1994). Ideal versus ought
predilections for approach and avoidance: Distinct self-regulatory system. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 276-286.
Johnson, R. E., King, D. D., Lin, S. H. J., Scott, B. A., Walker, E. M. J., & Wang, M. (2017). Regulatory focus trickle-down: How leader regulatory focus and behavior shape follower regulatory focus. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
140, 29-45.
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.
Kark, R., & Van Dijk, D. (2007). Motivation to lead, motivation to follow: The role of the self-regulatory focus in leadership processes. Academy of Management Review, 22, 500–528.
Keller, J., Mayo, R., Greifeneder, R., & Pfattheicher, S. (2015). Regulatory focus and generalized trust: the impact of prevention-focused self-regulation on trusting others. Frontiers in psychology, 6, 254.
Liberman, N., Idson, L. C, Camacho, C. J., & Higgins, T. E. (1999). Promotion and prevention choices between stability and change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77: 1135-1145.
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.
Lockwood, P., Sadler, P., Fyman, K., & Tuck, S. (2004). To do or not to do: Using positive and negative role models to harness motivation. Social Cognition, 22(4), 422-450. Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. (2003). Leadership processes and follower self-identity.
Psychology Press.
41 Mumford, M. D., & Connelly, M. S. (1991). Leaders as creators: Leader performance and
problem solving in ill-defined domains. The Leadership Quarterly, 2(4), 289-315. Mumford, M. D., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Redmond, M. R. (1994). Problem construction and
cognition: Applying problem representations in ill-defined domains.
Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation. Journal of management, 36(4), 827-856.
Petrou, P., Demerouti, E., & Häfner, M. (2015). When fit matters more: The effect of regulatory fit on adaptation to change. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(1), 126-142.
Pretz, J. E., Naples, A. J., & Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Recognizing, defining, and representing problems. In J.E. Davidson & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Psychology of Problem Solving, 3–30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reiter-Palmon, R., & Illies, J. J. (2004). Leadership and creativity: Understanding leadership from a creative problem-solving perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 55-77. Reiter-Palmon, R., Mumford, M. D., O'Conner Boes, J., & Runco, M. A. (1997). Problem construction and creativity: The role of ability, cue consistency, and active processing. Creativity Research Journal, 10(1), 9-23.
Reiter-Palmon, R., Mumford, M. D., & Threlfall, K. V. (1998). Solving Everyday Problems Creatively: The Role of Problem Construction and Personality Type. Creativity Research Journal, 11(3), 187–197.
Reiter-Palmon, R., & Robinson, E. J. 2009. Problem identification and construction: What do we know, what is the future? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(1): 43–47.
Scholer, A. A., Zou, X., Fujita, K., Stroessner, S. J., & Higgins, E. T. (2010). When risk seeking becomes a motivational necessity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 215–231.
Scholer, A. A., & Higgins, E. T. (2008). Distinguishing levels of approach and avoidance: An analysis using regulatory focus theory.
Schraw, G., Dunkle, M. E., & Bendixen, L. D. (1995). Cognitive processes in well-defined and ill-defined problem solving. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9(6), 523-538. 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.
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. Simonton, D. (1999). Creativity from a historiometric perspective. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.),
Handbook of creativity. NewYork: Cambridge University Press, 116-136
Smilansky, J. (1984). Problem solving and the quality of invention: An empirical investigation. Journal of educational psychology, 76(3), 377.
Smith, G. F. (1989). Managerial problem identification. Omega, 17(1), 27-36
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.
42 leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(4), 499-518.
Summerville, A., & Roese, N. J. (2008). Self-report measures of individual differences in regulatory focus: A cautionary note. Journal of research in personality, 42(1), 247-254.
Van‐Dijk, D., & Kluger, A. N. (2004). Feedback sign effect on motivation: Is it moderated by regulatory focus? Applied Psychology, 53(1), 113-135.
Vriend, T., Hamstra, M.R.W., Said, R., Janssen, O., Jordan, J., & Nijstad, B.A. Regulatory Focus Theory Disentangling Goals and Strategies.
Wu, C., McMullen, J. S., Neubert, M. J., & Yi, X. (2008). The influence of leader regulatory focus on employee creativity. Journal of Business Venturing, 23(5), 587-602.
Wyer, D. L. (2006). Motivational influences in consumer behavior: The role of regulatory focus. ACR North American Advances.
43
Appendix A
Conceptual model. Figure (1).
46 Appendix B
StanEl is a company established in Groningen focused on online consulting services. The goal of the company is to research and connect business experts with companies that are in need of guidance and consulting. Today, StanEl employs 150 employees.
The employees of the company are research analysts, web designers and programmers, salespeople, advisors, and marketeers. In the following tasks, you will be asked to imagine that you are an employee of the company StanEl, you have to consider what is important for you within this company.
Appendix C
Leader profile stated with promotion goals:
Robert Jones
Development Manager
Robert Jones is one of the general managers of StanEl since 2015. Today, Robert is the leader of the Development Department, consisting of 5 members. Robert takes risks to make sure he can improve StanEl’s current situation. Robert helps StanEl to realize its goals by striving with ambition to realize growth, make progress, and achieve gains.
Leader profile stated with prevention goals:
Robert Jones
Development Manager
47 that he maintains StanEl’s current situation. Robert helps StanEl to avoid these risks by striving to fulfill StanEl’s obligations towards their shareholders: avoiding insecurity, reducing uncertainty, and preventing losses.
Appendix D
Promotion message:
Hello!
As it is the first time that I am asking for your help I would also remind you how thing are getting done in StanEl.
At StanEl we have to make sure that we live up to the ideals, hopes, and aspirations of our shareholders. This means that we must maximize profits and realize progress and growth. In that way we strive to increase StanEl’s performance.
As your manager, I am asking you to consider StanEl’s ideals, hopes and aspirations when you make your decisions. Thereby, helping StanEl to maximize profits and realize progress and growth.
Finally, as always be eager as possible when trying to reach our goals! You are expected to embrace all opportunities enthusiastically, use all possible ways and means, and take all actions necessary. This means take as many risks as possible!
Thank you again for your help! Kinds Regards,
Robert
Prevention message:
Hello Again,
48 done in StanEl.
At StanEl we have to make sure we do not neglect to fulfill our responsibilities, duties, and obligations toward our shareholders. This means that we must minimize loses and avoid insecurity and uncertainty. In that way, we can avoid StanEl to be weakened below its current position.
As your manager, I am asking you to consider StanEl’s responsibilities, duties, and obligations when making decisions. Thereby, helping StanEl to minimize loses and avoid avoid insecurity.
Finally, as always, be as vigilant as possible when trying to attain your goals! You are expected to be concerned with avoiding mistakes, begin cautious about not going down the wrong road and playing it safe. This means to take as little risks as possible.
Thank you again for your help! Kinds Regards,
Robert
Appendix E
Hello, it is Robert again!
As part of the development team it is really important to always stay informed about interesting trends of the market (external) and of the company (internal). In the last StanEl’s Board Meeting several external and internal trends have been discussed.
The most important external trends that have been discusses are: - Access to international markets
- Customer needs
49 The most important internal trends that have been discussed are:
- Innovation of company’s products
- Location of the company / accessibility for customers - Responding to developments in the IT sector
- Retaining current customers
Based on how things are getting done in our team, I want to ask you to provide insights about these trends.
Kinds Regards, Robert
Appendix F
Chronic promotion focus:
Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements, using the scale below ranging from 1 ('strongly disagree') to 7 ('strongly agree').
Strongly disagree 1 disagree 2 Somewhat disagree 3 Neither agree, nor disagree 4 Somewhat agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree 7
I frequently imagine how I will achieve my hopes and aspirations
I often think about the person I would ideally like to be in the future
50 Strongly disagree 1 disagree 2 Somewhat disagree 3 Neither agree, nor disagree 4 Somewhat agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree 7
I often think about how I will achieve academic success
My major goal in school right now is to achieve my academic ambitions
I see myself as someone who is primarily striving to reach my “ideal self”—to fulfill my hopes, wishes, and aspirations
In general, I am focused on achieving positive outcomes in my life
I often imagine myself experiencing good things that I hope will happen to me
Overall, I am more oriented toward achieving success than preventing failure
Chronic prevention focus:
51 Strongly disagree 1 Disagree 2 Somewhat disagree 3 Neither agree nor disagree 4 Somewhat agree 5 Agree 6 Strongly agree 7 In general I am focused on preventing negative events in my life
I am anxious that I will fail short of my responsibilities and obligations
I often worry that I will fail to accomplish my academic goals I often imagine myself experiencing bad things that I fear might happen to me I frequently thing about how I can prevent failures in my life I am more oriented toward preventing losses than I am toward achieving gains My major goal in school right now is to avoid becoming an academic failure
I see myself as someone who is primarily striving to become the self I "ought" to be-to fulfil my duties, responsibilities and obligations
Appendix G
Promotion focus trait:
1). In life, I constantly strive to gain desirable outcome. 2). In life, I constantly strive to gain advantages.
52 4). In life, I constantly strive to grow as a person.
5). In life, I constantly strive to develop personally. 6). In life, I constantly strive to improve myself. 7). In life, I constantly strive to pursue my dreams. 8). In life, I constantly strive to live up to my ideals. 9). In life, I constantly strive to fulfill my hopes.
10). In life, to attain my goals, I enthusiastically embrace all opportunities. 11). In life, to attain my goals, I am eager to use all possible ways or means. 12). In life, to attain my goals, I am eager to take all necessary actions.
Prevention focus trait:
1). In life, I constantly strive to avoid undesirable outcomes. 2). In life, I constantly strive to minimize negative outcomes. 3). In life, I constantly strive to minimize losses.
4). In life, I constantly strive to avoid insecurity. 5). In life, I constantly strive to avoid danger. 6). In life, I constantly strive to avoid risks.
7). In life, I constantly strive to stay within my duties and obligations. 8). In life, I constantly strive to adhere to the rules.
9). In life, I constantly strive to conform to norms.
10). In life, to reach my goals, I am concerned with making mistakes.
