STRESS IN SUPERVISORS: THE EFFECTS OF POWER, POSITIONAL INSTABILITY AND REGULATORY FOCUS
Master thesis, MSc Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
July 25, 2011
GRETE KAAL Student number: 1940775
Rahumäe tee 4-4 11316, Tallinn, Estonia Telephone: +372 5275 176 e-mail: g.k.kaal@student.rug.nl
Supervisor Dr. F. Walter
Acknowledgment: I would like to thank dr. Frank Walter for his help and guidance during the process of writing my thesis. I am also deeply grateful to my family for all their support and especially indebted to my mother for enabling me to pursue my MSc degree in the Netherlands.
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is to investigate the development of stress in people in power positions. Moreover, I examined the effect of positional instability on the power-stress relationship and the mediating effect of regulatory focus in this relationship. In a scenario-based experiment, a 2 × 2 (high/low power vs. high/low positional instability) design was used to manipulate participants’ level of power and positional instability.
Based on a sample of 94 students, the results did not support the hypothesized relationships; however, various unexpected relationships were found with regard to promotion and prevention focus, positional instability and stress. These findings may shed new light on regulatory focus research.
INTRODUCTION
Job stress is an important issue, as its prevalence and the accompanying problems with individual health and well-being in the industrialized world are increasing (McGowan, Gardner, & Fletcher, 2006). Consequently, research on stress has also gained in importance, as the individual, organizational, and wider economic consequences of this problem have been recognized (Toppinen-Tanner, Kalimo, & Mutanen, 2002). Stress refers to a relationship between an individual and the environment that is evaluated by the person as endangering one’s well-being by being heavily demanding and thus exceeding one’s resources (Stanton, Balzer, Smith, Parra, & Ironson, 2001). Job stress has been associated with absenteeism, intention to leave, turnover and burnout (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001), as well as reduction in productivity and effectiveness at work, decreased job satisfaction, and work and organizational commitment (Halbesleben &
Bowler, 2007; Kashefi, 2009; Seltzer & Numerof, 1988; Ybema, Smulders, & Bongers, 2010). It has also been found to have an extensive effect on people’s health, personal well-being, and home lives (Burke & Greenglass, 2001).
There are numerous factors that can induce workplace stress. These range from wider technological, economic, and organizational antecedents, to more specific factors relating to job conditions and individual characteristics. Factors that have been found to relate to stress include organizations’ continuous drive for greater cost-effectiveness, tight budgets, the need to meet ever-rising expectations of customers, market changes, organizational restructuring, developments in information technology, high levels of unemployment (Rees, 1997), but also workload, work environment, relationships with co-workers and supervisors (Colligan & Higgins, 2005), motivational aspects,
interpersonal sensitivity, fear of negative evaluation (Motowidlo, Packard, & Manning, 1986), rewards, and control over work (Gelsema, van der Doef, Maes, Janssen, Akerboom, & Verhoeven, 2006), to name but a few.
Whereas antecedents of stress have frequently been investigated in employees without leadership responsibility, supervisory levels have received limited attention in this respect (Densten, 2001; Friedman, 1995; Lee & Ashforth, 1993). The main difference between these groups of individuals is the level of power, as supervisors usually possess relatively more power in comparison to (and over) subordinates (e.g.
Farmer & Aguinis, 1999). Investigating the development of stress in supervisors is of crucial relevance. Managerial levels can be considered critical within an organization, as the consequences of managers experiencing distress and dissatisfaction can have a negative influence on organizational outcomes (due to declined work performance and efficiency of the individual; Al-Assaf & Taylor, 1992). As supervisors belong to the group of professionals most susceptible to stress simply due to their enormous workload and level of responsibility (Al-Assaf & Taylor, 1992), the gap in stress research on managerial levels is surprising.
Power can generally be defined as an individual’s capacity to influence and control the outcomes of others and modify others’ states by providing or withholding resources or administering punishments (DeWall, Baumeister, Mead, & Vohs, 2010; Keltner, Gruenfeld & Anderson, 2003). There are differences in the degree of power that individuals in supervisory positions possess. People with higher levels of power have more social and material resources in their hands (Keltner et al., 2003), and they are less dependent on others for gaining these resources (Fiske, 1993; Keltner et al., 2003).
Moreover, power has been associated with various cognitive, affective and behavioral consequences. For example, powerful people tend to be in a better mood, express their emotions more, have more social influence (Anderson & Berdahl, 2002), and show higher consistency between personality traits and behavior (Keltner et al., 2003; Keltner, Young, Heerey, Oemig, & Monarch, 1998). Due to such consequences, the general perception might be that people with higher levels of power are also less influenced by stressors. In this paper, however, I argue that this perception of the consequences of power and the power-stress relationship is incomplete. Stability of the power position also needs to be taken into consideration. This could be the key moderator that changes the balance between the positive and negative effects of power, as it has been found that people change their strategic focus to either protecting their existing standing, or enhancing their position in response to outside threats (Ellemers & Bos, 1998).
Power positions vary in the extent to which they are stable (Keltner et al., 2003). In some groups, power can be revoked, whereas in other systems, power is immutable. This is dependent, for example, on events and individuals that threaten the legitimacy of the powerholder and thereby destabilize the social hierarchy (Keltner et al., 2003). It has been found that perceived and real threats reduce the positive effects of power and might, therefore, make powerful individuals more susceptible to stress (Keltner et al., 2003;
Kashefi, 2009). Hence, the aim of this paper is to investigate the effect that power has on stress levels and how this relationship might be influenced by the stable vs. unstable nature of one’s power position.
Furthermore, in addition to investigating the power-stress relationship, the aim of this paper is to bring more clarity into the mechanisms through which power and stress
are connected. Building on approach-inhibition theory, the important role of power in modifying the affective, behavioral, and cognitive processes of an individual has found ample empirical support (for a comprehensive overview, see Keltner et al., 2003).
Approach and inhibition are two basic orientations that an organism can take when responding to the environment (Elliot & Covington, 2001; Keltner et al., 2003). The central theoretical idea in this context refers to individual’s self-regulatory focus.
Specifically, self-regulatory focus can be divided into promotion focus (i.e. a goal attainment strategy focusing on achieving advancement and gains) and prevention focus (i.e. a goal attainment strategy focusing on maintaining security and avoiding losses;
Higgins, 1997). Heightened levels of power are said to increase promotion and decrease prevention self-regulatory focus (Higgins, 1997; Keltner et al., 2003). This notion has found empirical support, as previous findings show that people in high-power positions (e.g. leaders, members of majority groups) tend to exhibit signs of approach-motivated action, whereas people in positions associated with low levels of power (e.g. followers, representatives of low socioeconomic groups) usually show signs of inhibited behavior (Anderson & Berdahl, 2002). Therefore, it will be argued in this paper that the relationship between power and stress functions through the mediating effect of self- regulatory focus, whereas this overall, indirect relationship is moderated by the stability of the power position.
Consequently, the purpose of this research paper is investigate the topic of stress, more specifically by addressing the following questions: how do different levels of power affect an individual’s level of stress; how is this relationship mediated by an individual’s self-regulatory focus; and how does positional instability moderate this indirect
relationship? An overview of the proposed linkages can be seen in Figure 1. Hopefully new insights can be offered into the antecedents of stress in individuals on different power positions, and some beneficial practical and theoretical conclusions can be drawn.
--- Insert Figure 1 about here ---
HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT
Power and Self-Regulatory Focus
I propose that power influences an individual’s self-regulatory focus. Elevated power has been shown, accordingly, to influence the behavior, affect and cognition of the individual (Keltner et al., 2003). More specifically, it has been found that power influences the activation of two motivational orientations: the behavioral approach and behavioral inhibition systems of individuals. The approach system is believed to regulate aspects such as positive emotions, automatic cognition, attention to rewards, and disinhibited behavior, whereas the inhibition system relates to negative emotions, systematic and controlled cognition, attention to threats, and inhibited, situationally constrained behavior (Keltner et al., 2003).
A prominent theory within the approach and inhibition framework is Higgins’
theory of promotion and prevention self-regulatory focus (Higgins, 1997). It has been found that promotion focus activates a cheerful state of mind, encourages approach- related behavior and heightens sensitivity to positive outcomes (Brendl, Higgins, &
Lemm, 1995). This self-regulatory focus is triggered by nurturance needs, ideas of
possible gains, and thoughts about the ideal self. Prevention focus, on the other hand, is characterized by agitated and negative affect, sensitivity to failures and negative outcomes, and avoidant behavior, and this behavioral focus is triggered by security needs, potential punishment, and ideas about the ought self.
Elevated power has been associated with the approach dimension of the above- discussed theory, thus promotion focus. This implies that heightened levels of power induce positive affect and direct one’s attention towards positive aspects that facilitate the achievement of personal goals, but also enhance automatic information processing and disinhibited social behavior (Keltner et al., 2003). One of the reasons for power activating promotion-related motivation lies in the fact that people in elevated power positions tend to live in a more resource-rich environment. It has been found that powerful individuals have better access to a wide range of material resources, such as food, money, and physical comfort, and social resources such as praise, flattery and self-esteem (Keltner et al., 2003; Smith & Bargh, 2008). Moreover, having power implies that one can act and behave without fearing interference or serious social consequences because powerholders are less dependent on others for acquiring and maintaining important resources (Keltner et al., 2003). Finally, powerful people are by definition better able to achieve goals important to them (Smith & Bargh, 2008). These three factors create a rewarding context that nurtures the activation of the promotion system. In support, research has shown that powerholders exhibit more promotion-related types of behavior. For example, they tend to act, speak out and talk more, be more extraverted (Anderson, John, Keltner, & Kring, 2001; Galinsky, Gruenfeld, & Magee, 2003), and take greater risks (Crowe & Higgins, 1997).
People with low levels of power (or no power), however, have by definition fewer resources and are more restricted in their behavior, as they know their resources are limited and/or dependent on others (Keltner et al., 2003). Therefore, powerless individuals are often more anxious, and more sensitive to evaluations and criticism (Keltner et al., 2003). Low levels of power have similarly been associated with constrained behavior, because living in an environment characterized by threat and punishment urges the powerless to act in a reserved manner in order to prevent further experience of negative stimuli (Elliot, 2006). Thus, I will propose that lack of power is associated with increased activation of processes that are part of the prevention system, as people with reduced power have a tendency to exhibit elevated levels of inhibition- related behavior, affect and cognition (Keltner et al., 2003).
Hypothesis 1a: Power is positively associated with promotion self-regulatory focus.
Hypothesis 1b: Power is inversely associated with prevention self-regulatory focus.
The Moderating Effect of Positional Instability
I moreover propose, that positional instability moderates the effects of power on promotion and prevention focus. Individuals generally experience positional instability when they feel that someone or something in the environment threatens their position (Maner & Mead, 2010). A threatening situation is a negative one, over which the individual has relatively little control. Moreover, losses are likely to occur in a threatening situation (Dutton & Jackson, 1987) and in terms of positional instability, it is the loss of the power position that is of concern to the powerholder.
The risk of loss of position has been found to have a profound influence on people, for example in the form of stress reactions (Sapolsky, 2004). When people in a high-
power status perceive their position to be threatened, in particular, it signals to them the possibility of loosing their dominant position, which in turn induces them the need to protect themselves from any possible status change (Ellemers & Bos, 1998; Scheepers &
Ellemers, 2005). This means that powerholders will become more self-conscious and aware of the social consequences of their actions in situations of positional instability;
they will feel more pressured and anxious about their future performance and they might exhibit more careful, attentive and inhibited behavior as a result (Georgesen & Harris, 2006). Such behavior implies that the freedom with which powerful persons usually act, is reduced (Keltner et al., 2003).
Furthermore, according to the “threat-rigidity“ hypothesis (Staw, Sandelands, &
Dutton, 1981), positional instability influences people in power positions in two distinct ways. Firstly, it constricts powerholders’ ability to control resources (as they believe they have less influence on decisions than before, due to the unexpected instability), and secondly, it decreases their information processing abilities (as their field of attention narrows and sensitivity towards peripheral cues decreases; Gladstein & Reilly, 1985).
These factors make the individual less able to seek and detect opportunities for resource gains. As a consequence, the promotion focus might become inhibited, and powerholders might direct their attention away from gaining resources and direct their actions towards protecting their power in order to maintain position and prevent power loss (Maner &
Mead, 2010). This argumentation suggests that powerholders, who are threatened by positional instability, might experience a decreased activation of the motivational processes related to promotion self-regulation they would typically experience.
Moreover, in a situation where powerholders perceive their power position to be unstable, they need to constantly monitor their position in order to maintain and defend it (Ellemers, Doosje, Van Knippenberg, & Wilke, 1992, Scheepers & Ellemers, 2005). This means that positional instability urges powerholders to direct their attention to threats and negative aspects in the environment, in an attempt to control the situation (Georgesen &
Harris, 2006). Instead of looking for opportunities and gains, powerholders should then become more risk averse and seek security. Therefore it can be said that positional instability motivates powerholders to exhibit behaviors that are related to prevention self- regulatory focus. In other words, I expect that positional instability will diminish both the positive effect of power on an individual’s promotion focus and the negative effect of power on an individual’s prevention focus.
Hypothesis 2a: The positive relationship between power and promotion self- regulatory focus is weaker when the power position is unstable.
Hypothesis 2b: The negative relationship between power and prevention self- regulatory focus is weaker when the power position is unstable.
Self-Regulatory Focus and Stress
I furthermore hypothesize that self-regulatory focus influences stress. Hobfoll (1989) has defined stress in terms of losses and gains of resources. Loss is a key trigger of stress, as according to the conservation of resources theory, stress occurs when individuals’ resources are threatened to be lost or they are actually lost, and when individuals fail to regain either those or alternative resources (Hobfoll, 1989). Whereas a distressful situation is usually caused by environmental and situational demands that deplete and exceed the individual’s existing resources (Stanton, Balzer, Smith, Parra, &
Ironson, 2001), promotion self-regulatory focus encourages the individual to aim for opportunities for possible resource gains. As promotion-focused individuals are interested in achievements, growth and development, they are more capable of seeking ways of protecting their resources from depletion and restoring resources that are already lost.
This positive, opportunity-oriented mindset should ultimately make these individuals less susceptible to stress.
In line with the above reasoning, persons with promotion-focused motivation have been found to be more prone to experiencing positive psychological outcomes (Schokker, Links, Luttik, & Hagedoorn, 2010). A defining characteristic of promotion-focused individuals is their cheerfulness and ability to experience positive mood and rewards (Higgins, 1997). Promotion focus has been found to produce emotions along a cheerfulness-dejection dimension (Higgins, Shah, & Friedman, 1997), moreover promotion-focused individuals are more efficient in recognizing objects that are related to this cheerfulness-dejection dimension (and less efficient in appraising objects in the quiescence-agitation dimension; Higgins, 2002). This implies, again, that promotion- focused individuals are more sensitive to picking up positive rather than negative stimuli (Higgins, 2002). This notion has also found empirical support in medical research, where chronically ill patients experienced less distress when they focused on positive outcomes (i.e. were promotion focused), as opposed to negative ones (Schokker et al., 2010).
Prevention-motivated individuals on the other hand focus their attention on threats, negative emotions and outcomes; they use vigilant, cautious strategies to avoid losses and punishment (Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Ouschan, Boldero, Kashima, Wakimoto, &
Kashima, 2007). Moreover, prevention-focused individuals can be characterized by
negative affect, agitated emotions, and avoidance. As opposed to promotion focus, prevention focus produces emotions on the quiescence-agitation dimension (Higgins et al., 1997), whereby people are more prone to recognizing objects on this dimension (Higgins, 2002). It has also been found that prevention focus is associated with several negative outcomes in terms of physical symptoms, and lower perceived autonomy, competence and well-being (Elliot, Sheldon, & Church, 1997; Schokker et al., 2010).
Thus, it can be assumed that as prevention-focused individuals are more susceptible to the influence of negative factors in their environment (Higgins, 1997), they are also more influenced by possible stressors and thus are more susceptible to stress.
Consequently, it can be argued that promotion-focused individuals’ goal attainment strategy is characterized by positive affect, a focus on rewarding experiences and opportunities for resource gains. As a consequence, these people should be less vulnerable to stress. Prevention-focused individuals, on the other hand, apply a goal attainment strategy whereby they are focusing on avoiding negative stimuli, instead of seeking positive ones. This frequent experience of negative cognition and affect results in prevention-focused people being relatively more susceptible to stress. Therefore, based on the lines of reasoning above, the following hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 3a: Promotion self-regulatory focus is inversely associated with stress.
Hypothesis 3b: Prevention self-regulatory focus is positively associated with stress.
As a consequence of Hypotheses 1 and 3, I propose that power has an inverse, indirect influence on stress, and this indirect relationship is mediated by self-regulatory focus (viz., promotion and prevention focus). More specifically, power is suggested to positively influence promotion focus, which in turn has a negative influence on stress;
and power is suggested to negatively influence prevention focus, which is positively related to stress. Furthermore, positional instability is assumed to moderate the relationship between power and self-regulatory focus (Hypothesis 2). Thus it can be said that instability also has an influence on the indirect relationship between power and stress, as regulatory focus is the explanatory mechanism between the main variables.
Given that higher positional instability is suggested to decrease the effects of power on both promotion and prevention focus, I expect that positional instability will also decrease the indirect effect of power on stress, through these two mediators.
Hypothesis 4: Power is inversely related to stress, through the mediating effect of promotion and prevention focus, and this indirect relationship is moderated by instability of the power position. The negative, indirect relationship between power and stress (through both promotion and prevention focus) is more pronounced when one’s power position is stable rather than unstable.
METHOD
Participants
The sample consisted of 94 students of the University of Groningen, of whom 55 (59%) were male. The mean age of participants was 21 years (SD = 2.48). Most of the students were in their Bachelor level of studies (80%) and of Dutch origin (71%). The students received either EUR 3 or research credit for their participation.
Design and Procedure
A full factorial 2 × 2 experimental design was used with two conditions of power (high/low) and two conditions of positional instability (high/low). This resulted in four conditions and four different scenarios, to which the participants were assigned randomly upon arrival.
The study was conducted at the Research Lab of the Faculty of Economics and Business of the University of Groningen. Upon arrival, the participants were seated in separated cubicles. The experiment started with all participants reading an overall cover story, stating that we are interested in their thoughts and feelings about a hypothetical leadership and problem-solving task, and that their reactions to the task would be used to refine it for purposes of future research. The text stated that the participants would be reading a description of a problem-solving task to be resolved in cooperation with a subordinate, in which they would be in the leader role. Participants were instructed to read the task description closely and imagine as vividly as they could, how they would think, feel and act if they were actually participating in the described task (the complete scenario can be found in Appendix A). The cover story was the same for participants across all four experimental conditions.
In the next section, the hypothetical task was described. Depending on the experimental condition, participants’ role in the task was depicted as either being in a high power or a low power leader position. Furthermore, their power position was described as either unstable or stable. The respective manipulations were adapted from Georgesen and Harris (2006). In all four conditions, it was stressed that the participants need to imagine themselves in the role of the leader. Participants in the high power leader
condition were told that they would have the ability to evaluate their subordinate’s performance after the completion of the task. Moreover, based on this assessment they would have the freedom to distribute a cash prize (EUR 50) between themselves and the subordinate, however they see appropriate. The low power leaders were also given the possibility to evaluate the subordinate but they were told that the cash prize would be divided equally between themselves and the subordinate. In the positional instability condition participants were told that the experimenter would monitor their performance and if they perform unsatisfactorily, the experimenter would reverse supervisor- subordinate roles, as a result of which the power position will be lost. Participants in the condition of leader with a stable position were also told that they will be monitored, but their performance was not to be evaluated, as they would merely receive general feedback after the completion of the task. In other words, a possible reversal of supervisor-subordinate roles was not mentioned in this condition. After reading the scenario, participants completed various survey questions measuring the level of stress they believe they would experience in the task described, their expected promotion and prevention focus when working on the task, and demographic data.
Measurement Instruments
Stress. The level of expected stress was measured using the Stress in General scale
(Stanton, Balzer, Smith, Parra, & Ironson, 2001), as it can be applied in a wide range of contexts due to its general nature (as opposed to being focused on particular stressors).
The scale consists of 15 items (for example ‘I would expect this task to be stressful’), to be rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = ‘very slightly or not at all’ or ‘strongly disagree’
and 5 = ‘extremely’ or ‘strongly agree’). Cronbach’s alpha was .88.
Promotion and prevention focus. Promotion and prevention focus were measured
with items adapted from the Regulatory Focus Strategies Scale (RFSS) by Ouschan, Boldero, Kashima, Wakimoto and Kashima (2007), as this scale assesses people’s inclinations to use either promotion- or prevention focused strategies in goal pursuit. The promotion scale consists of 8 items (for example ‘Taking risks is essential for success in this task’) with a Cronbach’s alpha of .65; the prevention scale comprised 6 items (example item ‘To avoid failure in this task, one has to be careful’) with a Cronbach’s alpha of .80. Participants answered these items on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = ‘very slightly or not at all’ or ‘strongly disagree’ and 5 = ‘extremely’ or ‘strongly agree’).
RESULTS
Table 1 presents cell means and standard deviations of all measured study variables, according to the four experimental conditions (i.e., high power vs. low power / stable power position vs. unstable power position).
--- Insert Table 1 and Table 2 about here
---
To formally test Hypotheses 1 and 2, I conducted two sets of two-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs). The first ANOVA was on promotion focus, with the power and positional instability conditions as independent factors. As shown in Table 2, neither the main effects for power (F = .90, p = .35) and positional instability (F = .31, p = .58) nor the respective interaction term (F = .21, p = .65) reached statistical significance.
Hypotheses 1a and 2a were therefore rejected.
The second ANOVA was on prevention focus, with the power and positional instability conditions as independent factors. Again, Table 2 shows that neither the main effects for power (F = .11, p = .74) nor the interaction term of power and positional instability (F = .56, p = .46) reached statistical significance. Hypotheses 1b and 2b were therefore rejected as well.
Contrary to expectations, the results of these analyses show that power did not influence participants’ regulatory focus, nor was there a significant power × instability of power position interaction on self-regulatory focus. I note, however, that there was a marginally significant main effect of positional instability on prevention focus (F = 2.86, p = .10), with participants exhibiting lower prevention focus under conditions of high (M
= 3.00, SD = .75) rather than low (M = 3.26, SD = .73) positional instability. I will return to this unexpected finding in the Discussion section.
I observed bivariate correlation coefficients between the measured variables to examine Hypothesis 3. As shown in Table 3, promotion focus was positively (rather than negatively, as expected) associated with stress (r = .23, p < .05). Hypothesis 3a was therefore rejected. Again, I will return to this unexpected finding in the Discussion section. Furthermore, Table 3 shows that prevention focus was not significantly associated with stress (r = .08, p = .46). Hypothesis 3b was therefore rejected as well.
--- Insert Table 3 about here ---
Based on this pattern of non-significant findings, I also conclude that Hypothesis 4 is rejected. Absent a significant, interactive relationship of power and positional
instability with regulatory focus, and absent the expected relationships between regulatory focus and stress, it is not reasonable to assume the pattern of moderated mediation suggested in Hypothesis 4 (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Preacher, Rucker & Hayes, 2007).
Finally, although not hypothesized, I examined whether power and positional instability might be directly, rather than indirectly related with stress. Results of the two- way ANOVA in Table 4 reveal that the main effect for power was insignificant (F = .13, p = .72), as was the power × positional instability interaction (F = .09, p = .77). Positional instability, however, had a statistically significant main effect on stress (F = 5.48, p = .02). Participants expected to experience more stress with high (M = 2.93, SD = .54) rather than low (M = 2.62, SD = .71) positional instability. I will also discuss this finding in the subsequent section.
--- Insert Table 4 about here ---
DISCUSSION Findings
The aim of this study was to explore how different levels of power influence stress.
Moreover, I tried to bring clarity to the mediating mechanism between these variables, by adding regulatory focus to the research model, and also investigated how positional instability might influence this relationship. Results of a 2 × 2 scenario experiment revealed that the hypothesized relationship between power and regulatory focus did not
find support. In the current study, heightened levels of power did not increase the level of participants’ promotion focus, or decrease their prevention focus. These results contradict current empirical findings, as the relationship between power and promotion-prevention focus has found comprehensive support (Keltner et al., 2003). Moreover, contrary to expectations, positional instability did not have a moderating effect in the power- regulatory focus relationship. The reason for lack of support for the hypothesized relationship might lie in some methodological issues. As people were asked to imagine how they would act and feel in a certain situation, these answers may differ from reactions that would be based on an actual situation. This and other limitations will be further discussed in the respective section. Whereas the hypothesized relationships were not corroborated, I did find, however, that positional instability had a (marginal) negative influence on prevention focus. This indicates that individuals whose power position is stable are more likely to use prevention-focused strategies than individuals whose position is unstable.
Furthermore, there was no evidence to support the hypothesized relationship between regulatory focus and stress. Whereas higher scores on the prevention focus scale were not accompanied by higher levels of stress, promotion focus turned out to be positively related to stress. These findings reveal that, contrary to expectations, individuals who use promotion-focused goal attainment strategies, might in fact be more susceptible to stress. This is an interesting finding and might refer to the fact that whereas promotion focus is usually characterized by positive affect and cognition, this type of active reward-seeking strategy might also lead to the experience of more negative stimuli and stressors. The reason for this could be found in regulatory focus research (Higgins,
2002), which has found that both regulatory foci relate to distinct emotional experiences.
Promotion focus is reflected in the cheerfulness - dejection dimension (Higgins, 2002), where dejection manifests itself when a promotion-focused strategy fails (Leung & Lam, 2003). Dejection in turn is characterized by sadness and depression, symptoms that together with stress are components of psychological distress (Hall, Kamper, Maher, Latimer, Feirreira, & Nicholas, 2011).
Finally, the unexpected finding of a positive relationship between positional instability and stress indicates that the possibility of loosing the existing position is stressful to anybody, notwithstanding how much power the person has (although, as all the participants were in the leader position, everybody had some power). This result is actually in line with current findings, as threat, unpredictability and lack of control (inherent characteristics of positional instability) have been found to cause distinct physiological responses (Scheepers & Ellemers, 2005; Seery, 2011), in particular stress reactions (Sapolsky, 2004).
Theoretical Implications
Given a lack of support for the hypothesized relationships, I believe the main theoretical implications of this research relate to the study’s unexpected findings. The first implication relates to the inverse relationship between positional instability and prevention focus. The fact that people in unstable positions use less prevention-focused strategies may shed new light to regulatory focus research. Previously it has been found that threat increases inhibition and makes the individual behave in a more rigid manner (Staw et al., 1981). The results of the current study, however, contradict this view, as it appeared that as positional instability increases, people are in fact less inhibited in their
behavior, have less negative emotions and are less avoidant of threats and negative stimuli in their environment. It seems fruitful for future research to try and replicate these findings in order to examine possible generative mechanisms for this relationship.
Secondly, the positive relationship between promotion focus and stress may also bring new insights to the field of regulatory focus research. Thus far, promotion focus has been mostly associated with positive outcomes (Keltner et al., 2003). The current findings, however, suggest that promotion-focused individuals may in fact be more prone to stress. This could be related to the fact that they are more active and seek more ways to advance themselves; moreover this active goal pursuit may also be accompanied by increased expectancies (Förster, Grant, Idson, & Higgins, 2001). Such constant need for achievement and high demands toward oneself might in the end have deleterious consequences, causing distress and possibly even burnout.
Finally, the positive relationship between positional instability and stress fits nicely with current findings, as threat and instability have been found to increase one’s stress levels (Sapolsky, 2004). These results give grounds for further investigation of possible influence of positional instability on stress levels and even other work-related aspects, as most of the research done in that field has focused on threat in general, and not specifically on instability of the leader position.
Practical Implications
The results of this study have several practical implications. As discussed above, one of the findings indicates that being in an unstable power position has a disinhibiting effect on one’s behavior, i.e. as the power position becomes more stable, people direct more of their attention towards protecting their position and maintaining security,
whereas as the instability increases, the need to apply prevention-focused strategies decreases. Thus one of the implications would be that supervisors in a stable power position become preoccupied with maintaining their position, instead of seeking new ways of advancement. This means that whereas positional threat and instability might otherwise be perceived negatively, in the context of prevention focus a fair amount of positional instability might, in fact, be beneficial to supervisors and leaders (and the organization). This slight pressure urges supervisors to use less preventional measures and never get too comfortable and safe in their leader position. Translated into organizational settings, this would imply that having a talent pool of top-performing successors to today’s leaders, or some other form of mild positional threat, encourages supervisors to direct less of their focus and energy towards protecting their standing.
Positional threat has nevertheless its dark side as well, as according to current results positional instability also increases stress levels. Therefore organizations should be careful in interpreting these results, as too much positional instability might have a negative influence on today’s leaders productivity.
The positive association between promotion focus and stress implies that whereas promotion focus does induce positive affect, it may also influence people in a negative way, when translated into a work setting. Individuals with promotion focus should be careful in their goal pursuit to make sure that their chronic aspiration for ideals will not lead them to constantly make very high demands for themselves, as this might lead to depletion of resources, exhaustion and stress.
Limitations
The main limitation of this research paper can be found in the design of the study.
The reason for obtaining so few significant results might lie in the power and positional instability manipulations. Although the participants were asked to vividly imagine themselves in the described situation, the hypothetical nature of the task described was perhaps not well enough structured and not credible enough to sufficiently influence participants’ power and positional instability levels. Research done in a more real-life like situation (i.e. an experiment with an actual cooperation task or a field study) could produce different and more valid results.
Furthermore, using students as participants might also be one of the bottlenecks. As the aim of the study was to investigate the development of stress in people with power, i.e. supervisors, the power manipulated in students might not encompass all the cognitive elements that supervisory power does. Moreover, their reactions based on this power are still hypothetical, because probably they do not have any real work experience in a high- (or even low-) power position yet. Therefore power and positional threat might have a different influence on student’s goal attainment strategy and subsequent levels of stress, as compared to actual powerholders in real life. Keeping this in mind, perhaps the scope of this research should have been widened by including some more variables (e.g.
personality traits) in the model to control for possible factors of influence.
Future Research
As mentioned above, one of the shortcomings of this study relates to the credibility of the overall scenario. Therefore a future research direction for testing this model would
involve a field study or an experiment with an actual task following the scenario. This way the reactions of the participants would help clarify the role of power, positional instability and regulatory focus in the development of stress.
Moreover, the unexpected relationships between positional instability and prevention focus, and promotion focus and stress could be investigated. As the results of this study contradict what has been found so far about promotion and prevention focus, their relationship with positional instability and stress should be further investigated to add validity to the current findings and shed new light to the functioning mechanism and consequences of regulatory focus.
An especially interesting finding was the positive relationship between promotion focus and stress as promotion focus has generally been associated with positive cognitive and affective consequences. A future research direction in this field would involve adding a mediator to the model in order to explore the mechanisms through which stress evolves in promotion-focused individuals (mediators could for example involve workload, and possibility for rewards, evaluation and feedback). Moreover, it would be interesting to see under which circumstances this relationship holds- therefore also moderators such as personality traits could be included in the model.
REFERENCES
Al-Assaf, A. F., & Taylor, T. L. (1993). Managerial burnout. Health Care Supervisor, 11, 32-38.
Anderson, C., & Berdahl, J. L. (2002). The experience of power: Examining the effects of power on approach and inhibition tendencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1362-1377.
Anderson, C., John, O. P., Keltner, D., & Kring, A. M. (2001). Who attains social status?
Effects of personality and physical attractiveness in social groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 116-132.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
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.
Burke, R. J., & Greenglass, E. R. (2001). Hospital restructuring, work-family conflict and psychological burnout among nursing staff. Psychology and Health, 16, 583-594.
Colligan, T. W., & Higgins, E. M. (2005). Workplace stress: Etiology and consequences.
Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, 21, 89-97.
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.
Densten, I. L. (2001). Re-thinking burnout. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 22, 833- 847.
DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., Mead, N. L., & Vohs, K. D. (2011). How leaders self- regulate their task performance: Evidence that power promotes diligence, depletion, and disdain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 47-65.
Dutton, J. E., & Jackson, S. E. (1987). Categorizing strategic issues: Links to organizational action. Academy of Management Review, 12, 76-90.
Ellemers, N., & Bos, A. E. R. (1998). Social identity, relative deprivation, and coping with the threat of position loss: A field study among native shopkeepers in Amsterdam. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1987-2006.
Ellemers, N., Doosje, B. J., Van Knippenberg, A., & Wilke, H. (1992). Status protection in high status minority groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 123- 140.
Elliot, A. J. (2006). The hierarchical model of approach-avoidance motivation.
Motivation & Emotion, 30, 111-116.
Elliot, A. J., & Covington, M. V. (2001). Approach and avoidance motivation.
Educational Psychology Review, 13, 73-92.
Elliot, A. J., Sheldon, K. M., & Church, M. A. (1997). Avoidance personal goals and subjective well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 915-927.
Farmer, S., & Aguinis, H. (1999). Antecedents and outcomes of subordinate perceptions of power in supervisor-subordinate relationships: An integrated model. Academy of Management Proceedings & Membership Directory, E1-E6.
Fiske, S. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping.
American Psychologist, 48, 621-628.
Friedman, I. A. (1995). School principal burnout: The concept and its components.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 191-198.
Förster, J., Grant, H., Idson, L. C., & Higgins, E. T. (2001). Success/failure feedback, expectancies, and approach/avoidance motivation: How regulatory focus moderates classic relations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 253-260.
Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Magee, J. C. (2003). From power to action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 453-466.
Gelsema, T. I., van der Doef, M., Maes, S., Janssen, M., Akerboom, S., & Verhoeven, C.
(2006). A longitudinal study of job stress in the nursing profession: Causes and consequences. Journal of Nursing Management, 14, 289-299.
Georgesen, J., & Harris, M. J. (2006). Holding onto power: Effects of powerholders’
positional instability and expectancies on interactions with subordinates. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 451-468.
Gladstein, D. H., & Reilly, N. P. (1985). Group decision making under threat: The tycoon game. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 613-627.
Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Bowler, W. M. (2007). Emotional exhaustion and job performance: The mediating role of motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 93-106.
Hall, A. M., Kamper, S. J., Maher, C. G., Latimer, J., Ferreira, M. L., & Nicholas, M. K.
(2011). Symptoms of depression and stress mediate the effect of pain on disability.
Pain, 152, 1044-1051.
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280-1300.
Higgins, E. T. (2002). How self-regulation creates distinct values: The case of promotion and prevention decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12, 177-191 Higgins, E. T., Shah, J., & Friedman, R. (1997). Emotional responses to goal attainment;
Strength of regulatory focus as moderator. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 515-525.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources. A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513-524.
Kashefi, M. (2009). Job satisfaction and/or job stress. The psychological consequences of working in ‘High performance work organizations’. Current Sociology, 57, 809- 828.
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition.
Psychological Review, 110, 265-284.
Keltner, D., Young, R. C., Heerey, E. A., Oemig, C., & Monarch, N. D. (1998). Teasing in hierarchical and intimate relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1231-1247.
Lee, R. T., & Ashforth, B. E. (1993). A further examination of managerial burnout:
Toward an integrated model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 3-20.
Leung, C., & Lam, S. (2003). The effects of regulatory focus on teachers’ classroom management strategies and emotional consequences. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 114-125.
Maner, J. K., & Mead, N. L. (2010). The essential tension between leadership and power:
When leaders sacrifice group goals for the sake of self-interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 482-497.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397-422.
McGowan, J., Gardner, D., & Fletcher, R. (2006). Positive and negative affective outcomes of occupational stress. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 35, 92-98.
Motowidlo, S. J., Packard, J. S., & Manning, M. R. (1986). Occupational stress: Its causes and consequences for job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 618-629.
Ouschan, L., Boldero, J. M., Kashima, Y., Wakimoto, R., & Kashima, E. S. (2007).
Regulatory Focus Strategies Scale: A measure of individual differences in the endorsement of regulatory strategies. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 243- 257.
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185-227.
Rees, W. D. (1997). Managerial stress- dealing with the causes, not symptoms. Industrial and Commercial Training, 29, 35-40.
Sapolsky, R. M. (2004). Social status and health in humans and other animals. Annual Review of Anthropology, 33, 393-418.
Scheepers, D., & Ellemers, N. (2005). When the pressure is up: The assessment of social identity threat in low and high status groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 192-200.
Schokker, M. C., Links, T. P., Luttik, M. L., & Hagedoorn, M. (2010). The association between regulatory focus and distress in patients with a chronic disease: The moderating role of partner support. British Journal of Health Psychology, 15, 63- 78.
Seery, M. D. (2011). Challenge or threat? Cardiovascular indexes of resilience and vulnerability to potential stress in humans. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 35, 1603-1610.
Seltzer, J., & Numerof, R. E. (1988). Supervisory leadership and subordinate burnout.
The Academy of Management Journal, 31, 439-446.
Smith, P. K., & Bargh, J. A. (2008). Nonconscious effects of power on basic approach and avoidance tendencies. Social Cognition, 26, 1-24.
Stanton, J. M., Balzer, W. K., Smith, P. C., Parra, L. F., & Ironson, G. (2001). A general measure of work stress: The stress in general scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 866-888.
Staw, B. M., Sandelands, L. E., & Dutton, J. E. (1981). Threat-rigidity effects in organizational behavior: A multilevel analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 501-524.
Toppinen-Tanner, S., Kalimo, R., & Mutanen, P. (2002). The process of burnout in white-collar and blue-collar jobs: Eight-year prospective study of exhaustion.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 555-570.
Ybema, J. F., Smulders, P. G. W., & Bongers, P. M. (2010). Antecedents and consequences of employee absenteeism: A longitudinal perspective on the role of job satisfaction and burnout. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19, 102-124.
FIGURE 1
Conceptual Model Representing the Hypothesized Relationships Between Variables
Power Self-regulatory
focus Stress
Positional instability
TABLE 1
Means and Standard Deviations of Measured Study Variables Across All Experimental Conditions
High power Low power
Unstable Stable Unstable Stable
Variable M SD M SD M SD M SD
1 Promotion focus 3.54 .65 3.65 .45 3.70 .52 3.71 .55 2 Prevention focus 2.97 .76 3.34 .68 3.03 .76 3.17 .77
3 Stress 2.88 .54 2.61 .60 2.97 .54 2.62 .83
TABLE 2
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on Regulatory Focus
Variable Promotion focus Prevention focus
Power .90 0.11*
Positional instability .31 2.86†
Power*Positional instability .21 0.56*
Note: F-values are reported
† p < .10
TABLE 3
Correlations Between Measured Study Variables
Variable 1 2
1 Promotion focus –**
2 Prevention focus .16* –
3 Stress .23* .08
* p < .05
TABLE 4
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on Stress
Variable Stress
Power 0.13*
Positional instability 5.48* Power*Positional instability 0.09* Note: F-values are reported
* p < .05
APPENDIX A
Cover Story
You are assigned to be a LEADER in this experiment. In this role, you work together with another participant who is your subordinate.
The task itself is a problem-solving exercise. It consists of solving anagrams for 10 minutes. An anagram is a type of word play and results from rearranging the letters of a phrase to produce a new phrase using all the original letters only once. You will be presented with several anagrams, and in order to solve them, you need to figure out, in cooperation with your subordinate, which well-known person’s name letters are the solution to each anagram. Here are some examples:
Anagram: He bugs Gore > Solution: George Bush
Anagram: I am a weakish speller > Solution: William Shakespeare Anagram: One cool dance musician > Solution: Madonna Louise Ciccone After the task, the experimenter will check the solutions that you and your subordinate provide. The supervisor-subordinate team that correctly solves the most anagrams together within 10 minutes will receive a cash prize of EUR 50!
It is important to remember that you are the leader in this task. Therefore, you have the power to control the interaction with the subordinate and structure the process of solving the anagrams
Manipulations
Condition 1: High power / unstable position
Also, as the leader, you will evaluate the subordinate’s performance after completing the task. Based on your evaluation, you can decide how the EUR 50 cash prize should be distributed between yourself and the subordinate if you win this price.
You have complete freedom in making this decision, based on your assessment of the subordinate’s performance in solving the anagrams.
During the task, the experimenter monitors your behavior as you are working with your subordinate through a video camera. If your performance as a leader is not satisfactory, the experimenter will reverse the leader and subordinate functions. You will, then, lose your leadership role. Instead, the other participant (your previous subordinate) will be the leader and, based on his or her evaluation of your performance, the other participant will decide how the EUR 50 cash price is distributed.
Condition 2: High power / stable position
Also, as the leader, you will evaluate the subordinate’s performance after completing the task. Based on your evaluation, you can decide how the EUR 50 cash prize should be distributed between yourself and the subordinate if you win this price.
You have complete freedom in making this decision, based on your assessment of the subordinate’s performance in solving the anagrams.
During the task, the experimenter monitors your behavior as you are working with your subordinate through a video camera. At the end of the experiment, you will receive some general, written feedback on your leadership behavior and performance.
Condition 3: Low power / unstable position
Also, as the leader, you will evaluate the subordinate’s performance after completing the task. Based on your evaluation, you will prepare a brief, written feedback statement for the subordinate. If you win the EUR 50 cash price, it will be equally divided between you and your subordinate.
During the task, the experimenter monitors your behavior as you are working with your subordinate through a video camera. If your performance as a leader is not satisfactory, the experimenter will reverse the leader and subordinate functions. You will, then, lose your leadership role. Instead, the other participant (your previous subordinate) will be the leader and, based on his or her evaluation of your performance, the other participant will prepare a brief, written feedback statement about you.
Condition 4: Low power / stable position
Also, as the leader, you will evaluate the subordinate’s performance after completing the task. Based on your evaluation, you will prepare a brief, written feedback statement for the subordinate. If you win the EUR 50 cash price, it will be equally divided between you and your subordinate.
During the task, the experimenter monitors your behavior as you are working with your subordinate through a video camera. At the end of the experiment, you will receive some general, written feedback on your leadership behavior and performance.
