DIRECTING EMPLOYEES TOWARD RECOGNIZING THE RIGHT PROBLEM:
THE ROLE OF LEADER REGULATORY FOCUS AND POWER
E.A. (EVA) VAN DER LANS Student number: 2192357
University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
Research Master HRM & OB Madame Curiestraat 31
9728 HK Groningen +31 650 808 167
e.a.van.der.lans@student.rug.nl
ABSTRACT
Creative problem-solving is essential for solving the numerous ill-defined problems employees are confronted with in today’s rapidly changing business environment. Unsurprisingly, creative problem-solving has been studied extensively. However, current research has mainly neglected the initial step of problem recognition, whereas the way a problem is recognized has a major impact on the succeeding steps of the creative problem-solving process. By taking an integrated leader regulatory focus - power perspective, we examine how, why, and when leaders may influence employees in what type of problems they recognize. Our findings show that leader promotion focus leads employees to recognize opportunities through the adoption of eagerness strategies, whereas leader prevention focus results in the recognition of threats through the adoption of vigilance strategies. We did not find, however, a moderating effect of generalized sense of power (Study 1) or of situational power (Study 2) for the path from employee regulatory strategies to problem recognition. The implications of these findings will be discussed.
Keywords: creative problem-solving, problem recognition, leader regulatory focus, employee
regulatory strategies, power
1. INTRODUCTION
“If I had only one hour to save the world, I would spend fifty-five minutes defining the problem, and only five minutes finding the solution.”
– Albert Einstein
“Leaders need to provide strategy and direction and to give employees tools that enable them to gather information and insight from around the world …”
– Bill Gates It is beyond a doubt that because of today’s highly competitive and extremely complex business environment employees are increasingly confronted with ill-defined problems (Pretz, Naples, & Sternberg, 2003). Ill-defined problems, defined as “a gap between the present and some (un)desired state of affairs” (Basadur, Ellspermann, & Evans, 1994: 629), have increased both the need for creative problem-solving, as well as the importance of the role leaders have in this process (Reiter-Palmon & Illies, 2004; Shalley, Gilson, & Blum, 2009; Wu, McMullen, Neubert, & Yi, 2008). Unsurprisingly, therefore, creative problem-solving and the way leaders directly influence employees’ creative (problem-solving) potential, have been the subject of many studies (Liu et al., 2016; Wu et al., 2008). The lion’s share of these studies has mainly focused on examining how leaders facilitate (or hinder) employees in generating creative ideas for problem solutions, thereby neglecting the issue of problem recognition. However, a problem must first be recognized to exist (i.e., created or discovered) before it can be solved. That is, problem recognition is the first phase of a problem construction process, and is usually followed by the definition (i.e., determination of goals), and the representation (i.e., description) of the recognized problem (Pretz et al., 2003). The lack of research on problem recognition implies that we have no way of knowing whether and how leaders may influence, directly or indirectly, the way employees engage in this very first phase of the creative problem-solving process.
Our lack of knowledge regarding how leaders may influence employee problem recognition is problematic for various reasons. As reflected in Einstein’s quote above, problem construction (and thereby problem recognition, definition, and representation) has a remarkable and crucial impact on both the succeeding problem-solving steps as well as the final solution (Mumford, 2000; Reiter-Palmon & Robinson, 2009). Hence, scholars have called for more investigation into problem construction and the way leaders may influence this process (Reiter- Palmon & Robinson, 2009). Moreover, the few scholars that have focused on problem construction, were only able to capture the last phase of this step (i.e., problem representation) by explicitly asking participants to generate problem restatements for pre-presented problems.
Thus, problem recognition, defined as the creation or discovery of a problem through the
recognition of situational (problem) cues (Pretz et al., 2003), has deserved very little research attention. Employees may differ in the way they recognize problems. Where one would clearly see the situational cues that signal a problem, another would not see them at all. Also, where some employees tend to perceive a problem as a challenging possibility for improving the current situation (i.e., an opportunity), others tend to perceive it as hindering (i.e., a threat). It is likely that recognizing a problem in terms of opportunities or in terms of threats, will result in major differences regarding how someone defines and solves a problem. Therefore, we argue that it is crucial to improve our understanding of the factors and underlying motivational mechanisms that regulate how employees recognize problems.
As reflected in Bill Gates’ quote at the beginning of this introduction, leaders need to provide direction (i.e., goals) and strategies that enable employees to gather information from the work environment and recognize problem cues that need to be addressed. By drawing on leader regulatory focus theory (LRF) (Kark & Van Dijk, 2007; Wu et al., 2008), we argue that leaders influence employees in their motivation to recognize problems through the type of regulatory goals they set and the type of regulatory strategies they provide. That is, promotion- focused leaders tend to communicate maximal goals (e.g., gains, ideals, and advancements), whereas prevention-focused leaders tend to communicate minimal goals (e.g., non-losses, security, and oughts). Maximal goals will induce a state of eagerness in employees when pursuing these goals, whereas minimal goals will induce a state of vigilance. We propose that these distinct motivational strategies, in turn, will influence how employees approach problem situations and what type of problem cues (i.e., opportunities vs. threats) they recognize.
However, besides the potential influence of employees’ regulatory motivational strategies (as induced by leader regulatory focus) in how they approach and recognize situational problem cues, the literature on power suggests that how people perceive and construe social situations also depends on their sense of power (Keltner, Gruenfeld, &
Anderson, 2003). Problem recognition is often a social process in which involved persons discuss alternative views (Cowan, 1986). That would especially be the case in the context of business, given that employees would regularly face the situation in which their leaders or peers would not agree on the existence of a problem (Smith, 1989) or the way it has been interpreted.
As power – defined as “the asymmetric control over valuable resources and outcomes within a
specific situation” (Galinsky et al., 2008: 1451) - has a major role in how people approach and
cognitively interpret situations (e.g., problem recognition in an organizational context), we
believe that employees’ power might interact with their motivational strategies of eagerness
and vigilance in predicting problem recognition.
Specifically, drawing upon literature on regulatory focus (Higgins, 1997, 1998), power (Galinsky et al., 2008), and problem recognition (Pretz et al., 2003), we argue that leader regulatory focus influences the way employees recognize problems through the regulatory strategies employees adopt. In addition, we propose a moderation effect of power in the relation between employee regulatory strategies and problem recognition, such that for the powerful the relation between employee regulatory strategies (i.e., eagerness vs. vigilance strategies) and problem recognition (i.e., opportunities vs. threats) will be strengthened. By this, we aim to contribute to the literature on creative problem-solving, regulatory focus, and power in the following ways. We contribute to the literature on creative problem-solving by shedding light on its initial step of problem recognition through identifying the underlying motivational and cognitive mechanisms (i.e., employee regulatory strategies and power) that clarify how, why, and when employees approach ill-defined problem situations and what type of problem cues they recognize. Besides this, we contribute to the literature on regulatory focus by contributing to the scarce empirical evidence for the effects of leader regulatory focus on employee motivation and behavior through improving our understanding of the effects of both leader promotion and leader prevention focus (Wu et al., 2008) on the way employees make sense of ill-defined problem situations.
Furthermore, this paper makes important contributions to practice. Although creative problem-solving is assumed to be essential for organizational survival, to date, we have little understanding of what drives people to engage in problem recognition. We aim to improve our understanding of this process by examining it both from a motivational perspective (i.e., leader regulatory focus) as well as from a cognitive and social perspective (i.e., power). By this, we hope to identify potential ways through which people might be influenced to recognize problems. Overall, creative problem-solving is important in many jobs, from finance to marketing, we all have to solve problems in a creative way to be successful (Mumford, Scott, Gaddis, & Strange, 2002). Therefore, our findings might be valuable across many fields. To examine the effects of leader regulatory focus, employee regulatory strategies, and power on problem recognition (see Figure 1), we conducted two experimental studies.
This paper is structured as follows. First, we will discuss the role of leader regulatory
focus and employee regulatory strategies in employee problem recognition. Next, we will focus
on how power may moderate the effects of employees’ regulatory strategies, followed by the
methods and results of Study 1 (N = 127) and Study 2 (N = 173). Finally, we will discuss our
findings and we propose directions for future research.
--- Insert Figure 1 about here
---
2. THEORY
2.1. Leader regulatory focus and employee problem recognition
Regulatory Focus Theory states that approaching pleasure and avoiding pain is regulated through different motivational mechanisms: promotion and prevention foci (Higgins, 1997, 1998). One’s regulatory focus (i.e., promotion vs. prevention focus) influences the goals one strives for, and consequently, the strategies one adopts and the type of environmental cues (e.g., problem cues) one attunes to (Ciuchta, Letwin, Stevenson, & Mcmahon, 2016) in order to reach these goals. That is, promotion-focused people focus on approaching desired goals (e.g., gains, advancements, and ideals), by adopting eagerness strategies and by turning their attention to the positive cues (e.g., opportunities) in their environment (Brockner & Higgins, 2001; Ciuchta et al., 2016; Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Friedman & Förster, 2001). In contrast, prevention-focused people focus on avoiding undesired goals (e.g., losses, insecurity, and irresponsibility), by adopting vigilance strategies and by turning their attention to the negative cues (e.g., threats) in their environment. In other words, promotion-focused people tend to maximize desired outcomes by improving the current state, whereas prevention-focused people tend to minimize undesired outcomes by maintaining or by avoiding any deterioration of the current state (Higgins, Roney, Crowe, & Hymes, 1994). To do so, promotion-focused people may be eager in directing their attention to cues signaling potential opportunities, whereas prevention-focused people may be vigilant in directing their attention to cues signaling potential threats. Although someone exhibits both two foci (i.e., promotion focus and prevention focus), at a given point in time, one of the two foci dominates the other, because it has been triggered either by salient situational stimuli or by someone’s chronic preference for one of the two foci in case there are no situational triggers at hand (Wu et al., 2008).
Recently, research has argued that employees’ regulatory orientation at a given point in
time is highly influenced by the regulatory focus of their leader (Kark & Van Dijk, 2007; Wu
et al., 2008). That is, the regulatory focus a leader has (leader promotion focus vs. leader
prevention focus) influences the way he or she motivates his or her followers (Kark & Van
Dijk, 2007), which in turn, may trigger employees’ situational regulatory focus (Wu et al.,
2008). More specifically, leaders may be able to influence employees in their motivation and
behavior through the regulatory goals (promotion vs. prevention goals) they communicate,
because employees view their leader’s regulatory focus as an indication for how they are expected to behave (Wu et al., 2008). Promotion-focused leaders tend to set maximal goals (i.e., gains, advancements, and ideals) for their employees, whereas prevention-focused leaders tend to set minimal goals (i.e., non-losses, security, and oughts). Employees provided with maximal goal are motivated to improve the current state and to do so, they should seize every opportunity presented in the environment eagerly. In contrast, employees provided with minimal goals are motivated to maintain or to avoid any deterioration of the current state, which asks for the exercise of vigilance strategies to detect potential threats. Thus, we define leader regulatory focus as the regulatory goals (i.e., leader promotion focus: maximal goals; leader prevention focus: minimal goals) as well as the matching regulatory strategies (i.e., eagerness vs. vigilance strategies) a leader sets and provides to his or her followers. As leader regulatory focus influences the goals employees strive for, and consequently the (problem-solving) strategies they adopt (Kark & Van Dijk, 2007) and the type of environmental cues they attune to (Ciuchta et al., 2016), we argue that it should also have its influence on the type of problem cues employees recognize in the ill-defined problem situations they encounter while pursuing their goals.
As stated, problem recognition, the very first phase of the creative problem-solving process, can be defined as the creation or discovery of a problem through the recognition of situational (problem) cues (Pretz et al., 2003). Employees must first recognize that a problem exists, before they can define, represent and solve it. How employees recognize a problem has a major impact on how they define and represent it. This is especially true for the ill-defined problems employees are confronted with these days, given that these problems are characterized by ambiguity and “include conflicting assumptions and information that may lead to different solutions” (Reiter-Palmon, Mumford, O’Conner Boes, & Runco, 1997: 9). In other words, ill- defined problems require employees to start with recognizing what the problem is (Mumford, 2000), given that this is unclear upfront. We argue that a problem can both encompass cues that are recognized as signals of an undesired situation (i.e., a threat) that someone wants to avoid, while at the same time, these cues can indicate a situation that is perceived as highly desirable (i.e., an opportunity) and for which someone strives for (Getzels, 1982). In line with this, we define a problem as “ a gap between the present and some (un)desired state of affairs” (Basadur, Ellspermann, & Evans, 1994: 629). A gap might entail a positive, negative or unknown meaning (Basadur et al., 1994).
As stated by previous research, “when people are driven by promotion goals, they
scrutinize their social world for information that bears on the pursuit of success, in contrast,
when people are driven by prevention goals, they focus on information relevant to the avoidance of failure” (Lockwood, Jordan, & Kunda, 2002: 854-855). The recognition of cues signaling opportunities (i.e., chances for advancement) may help employees to reach successes, while the recognition of cues signaling threats (i.e., chances for decline) may help employees to avoid failure. Furthermore, employees’ regulatory orientation determines which type of information cues stand out for them in particular (Ciuchta et al., 2016). That is, in case of two-sided information, like for ill-defined problem situations in which cues can indicate both a desired or undesired situation, promotion-focused employees tend to direct their attention to the positive information cues, whereas prevention-focused employees tend to direct their attention to the negative information cues (Ciuchta et al., 2016). Based on the above arguments, we propose that employees tend to recognize specific problem cues (i.e., cues signaling opportunities or threats), because the regulatory focus of their leader influences, through the goals he or she sets as well as the strategies he or she provides, the information cues they direct their attention to.
In brief, we propose that leader promotion focus stimulates employees to recognize problem cues signaling advancements, growth, ideals, and gains (i.e., opportunities) through employee eagerness strategies, whereas leader prevention focus results in the recognition of problem cues signaling insecurity, uncertainty, irresponsibility, and losses (i.e., threats) through employee vigilance strategies.
In addition to these conceptual arguments for the influential role of leader regulatory
focus in employee problem recognition, we can derive some indications for our proposed
relations from current empirical research findings. Wu et al. (2008) are one the few authors that
empirically examined the effect of leader regulatory focus on employees’ creative behavior
(generation of new and useful ideas). They found that leader promotion focus is positively
associated with employee creativity through employee promotion focus. However, they did not
find any effect of leader prevention focus, possibly because prevention focus was not associated
with the type of creative behavior they measured in their study (Wu et al., 2008). More recently,
Li, Li, Shang, and Xi (2015) proposed and found that the relationship between leader regulatory
focus and employee creativity is positively moderated by job complexity. Their argument for
this moderation effect is that complex jobs are characterized by uncertainty, and therefore it is
essential for employees to learn from important role models (i.e., leaders) to perform complex
jobs successfully (Li et al., 2015). This may suggest that the relation between leader regulatory
focus and employee problem recognition may partly be explained by the nature of the problems
employees are confronted with. Given that ill-defined problems are associated with higher
levels of uncertainty, especially for these problems leader regulatory focus might affect
employees’ problem recognition behavior, because leaders are in the position to provide the guidance employees need to make sense of ambiguous and complex (problem) situations (Naidoo, 2016).
Based on the above reasoning and empirical indications, we formulate the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Leader regulatory focus influences employee problem recognition through employee regulatory strategies. Specifically, leader promotion focus results in the recognition of problem cues signaling opportunities through employee eagerness strategies (H1a), whereas leader prevention focus results in the recognition of problem cues signaling threats through employee vigilance strategies (H1b).
2.2. Power
As already stated, social cognition has a major impact on the way someone approaches and recognizes problem cues. Furthermore, the goals someone strives for and the strategies someone adopts (as induced by leader regulatory focus) determine whether someone focuses on problem cues signaling opportunities or threats. Similarly, the literature on power, defining power as “the asymmetric control over valuable resources and outcomes within a specific situation” (Galinsky et al., 2008: 1451), states that individuals’ cognitive interpretation of social situations depends on their sense of power (Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003). That is,
“power channels behavior toward accomplishing a specific goal” (Galinsky, Gruenfeld, &
Magee, 2003: 451). Therefore, as power has a major role in how people approach and interpret social situations (e.g., problem recognition in an organizational context), we believe that the concept of power might explain under what circumstances employees are likely to recognize specific types of problem cues.
From a cognitive perspective, elevated power reduces the pressure of the situation and draws attention to one’s internal goals and needs (Galinsky et al., 2008), and to one’s desires (Galinsky et al., 2003). Powerful individuals tend to be sensitive to information that may be useful in reaching their goals, whereas they will not be influenced by information that is not relevant in this (Galinsky et al., 2008), including the perspectives of others. In other words, power not only results in the possibility to influence others, it also may ‘protect’ someone to be influenced by others (Galinsky et al., 2008). Furthermore, as argued by Galinsky et al. (2008:
1451), previous research has “demonstrated that possessing power strengthens the
correspondence of one’s expressions and behavior with one’s temporary and chronic internal
states”. Regarding creativity, Galinsky et al. (2008) found that in situations where the presence of examples might limit creative performance because these examples distract attention, participants high in power developed more creative ideas. That is, instead of being distracted by the examples, the powerful were more sensitive to their internal states and therefore were more creative. Furthermore, Galinsky, Magee, Inesi, and Gruenfeld (2006: 1072) proposed and confirmed that powerful individuals are less able to take into account others’ perspectives (i.e.,
“how other individuals see the world, think about the world, and feel about the world”). In brief, powerful individuals tend to close their minds for irrelevant information, while at the same time they are more sensitive to information that facilitates reaching their goals. Besides this, Guinote (2007) examined the effect of power on goal pursuit. She argued that the powerful will experience greater freedom, which results in stronger goal-directed and goal-consistent behavior (Guinote, 2007). Even more interesting, she argued that these effects are independent of the context. That is, having power results in stronger goal-directed and goal-consistent behavior in general, not only for the goals previously associated with power (Guinote, 2007).
Power influences self-regulation in a way that the powerful are better able to behave in a goal- consistent way, and show greater flexibility and persistence. Guinote (2007) tested this for a number of goals, including goals related to problem-solving. In contrast to the powerful, those low in power are more likely to consider alternative perspectives, and tend to divide their attention not only on multiple others, but also on multiple aspects of the situation they are confronted with (Guinote, 2007). For this reason, besides processing relevant information, those low in power will also process information that is irrelevant for reaching their goals.
Consequently, they will be less able to behave in a goal-directed and goal-consisted way (Guinote, 2007).
The above arguments suggest that high power will strengthen one’s regulatory
motivation, because the powerful are more focused on their internal states and behave in a more
goal-directed and goal-consisted way. In contrast, low power will weaken one’s regulatory
motivation, because the powerless are more focused on their surroundings and therefore are
less able to behave in a goal-directed and goal-consisted way. This implies that those that strive
for maximum goals (e.g., gains, ideals, and advancements) and are high in power, will be even
more eager to recognize opportunities, given that recognizing opportunities may help them to
reach success (i.e., achieve maximum goals). In contrast, those low in power will be less
focused on the recognition of opportunities, because, as stated, these people tend to direct their
attention to multiple perspectives of the situation and will also process information that does
not necessarily help them in reaching their goals. Therefore, we expect that the powerless will
also recognize threats. In a similar vein, we propose that those that strive for minimal goals (e.g., non-losses, security, and oughts) and are high in power, will be even more vigilant to recognize threats, because the recognition of threats may help them to avoid undesired outcomes (i.e., chances for decline). However, again, those low in power will be less focused on the recognition of threats, given that the powerless are less able to behave in a goal-consisted and goal-directed way, because they tend to consider others’ perspectives as well. We expect that these perspectives will distract someone’s attention from the negative problem cues in the environment. That is, they will ‘force’ someone to consider also the positive aspects of the situation. In brief, we propose that high rather than low power will strengthen the effects of employee regulatory strategies (i.e., eagerness vs. vigilance strategies) on problem recognition (i.e., recognition of opportunities or threats). This results in the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2: Power positively moderates the relationship between employee regulatory strategies and employee problem recognition. Specifically, the positive relation between employee eagerness strategies and the recognition of opportunities (H2A) as well as the positive relation between employee vigilance strategies and the recognition of threats (H2B) will be strengthened under high rather than low levels of power.
To conclude, we propose that leader regulatory focus has an indirect relationship with employee problem recognition through the mediational effect of employee regulatory strategies. In addition, we expect that this indirect relationship will be moderated by power for the path from employee regulatory strategies to employee problem recognition. In other words, the moderated mediation model explains both why and how (through employee regulatory strategies) as well as when (power) leader regulatory focus is related to employee problem recognition. Based on this, we formulated the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: The indirect relationship between leader regulatory focus and employee
problem recognition is mediated by employee regulatory strategies and moderated by power
for the path from employee regulatory strategies to employee problem recognition.
3. STUDY 1: LEADER REGULATORY FOCUS, EMPLOYEE REGULATORY STRATEGIES, POWER AND PROBLEM RECOGNITION
In Study 1, we examined whether the relationship between leader regulatory focus and problem recognition is mediated by employee regulatory strategies. More specifically, we investigated whether leader promotion focus results in the recognition of problem cues signaling advancements, growth, ideals, and gains (i.e., opportunities), through employee eagerness strategies (Hypothesis 1A), whereas leader prevention focus results in the recognition of problem cues signaling insecurity, irresponsibility, and losses (i.e., threats), through employee vigilance strategies (Hypothesis 1B). In addition, we examined whether the relationship between employee regulatory strategies (eagerness vs. vigilance strategies) and problem recognition (i.e., recognition and perceived importance of opportunities vs. threats) is moderated by generalized sense of power (Hypothesis 2A and 2B). Finally, we tested the moderated mediation model in which we proposed that the indirect relationship between leader regulatory focus and employee problem recognition is mediated by employee regulatory strategies and moderated by power for the path from employee regulatory strategies to employee problem recognition (Hypothesis 3).
3.1. METHODS 3.1.1. Participants and design
To test our hypotheses, we conducted a lab experiment among one hundred and twenty- seven Dutch students (51 male, 76 female)
1of the University of Groningen, with a mean age of 20.53 (SD
age= 2.12), ranging from 18 to 27. The study was conducted in Dutch and only native speakers could participate. We explained to participants that we were interested in their personal preferences in goal strivings. Participants received money or course credits for participation. We randomly assigned the participants to one of the two conditions (leader regulatory focus: leader promotion focus vs. leader prevention focus).
3.1.2. Procedure
We told the participants that the study consisted of two parts. In the first part, participants were working in a company, and in the second part they were asked to fill in several questionnaires. In the first part, we used an interactive business task to encourage participants to image themselves working in a company. We first introduced them to the hypothetical company ‘BugShare’ (see Appendix A for the company description of BugShare) and then told
1Eight participants were excluded for reasons as ‘not fluent in Dutch’ or ‘participant was aware of hypotheses’.
them that they were working in a one of the multifunctional product teams of this company.
Next, participants were told that the company recently introduced a new internal communication system. Participants received an e-mail about this communication system and watched a video. Thereafter, participants were introduced to their direct supervisor, ‘Joost’.
They read a leader profile in which Joost was briefly introduced and either promotion or
prevention company goals were stated (see Appendix B for the leader profiles). Next,
participants received a voice message from Joost in which he told them that he was very busy
at the moment, but that there were a lot of things going on. He mentioned several ‘signals’ (i.e.,
problem cues) related to several issues and challenges facing Bugshare, and asked the
participants to help him out by picking up a number of ‘signals’ and communicate these to the
team. We developed four classes of problem cues (i.e., signals), each existing of one problem
cue formulated in three different ways (i.e., one neutral, one promotion, and one prevention
formulation) (see Appendix C for the problem cues). Both the order of the classes and the order
of the neutral, promotion, and prevention problem cues were randomized and participants were
randomly assigned to one of the 48 voice messages. After mentioning the signals, either a
promotion or prevention focus was manipulated in the last part of the voice message. After the
voice message, participants received a text message, in which Joost stated that he realized that
he provided them with a lot of information, and therefore had decided to send the signals also
in a text message. Again, the order of both the classes and the problem cues were randomized
and participants were randomly assigned to one of the 48 text messages. After reading the text
message, participants were asked to summarize the signals, and to choose the signals they
wanted to pick up. Thereafter, participants were asked to fill in six statements about their
motivation (i.e., eagerness or vigilance strategies) while choosing the signals. Next, participants
were directed to their e-mail account and were asked to write and send an e-mail to their team
and Joost. The signals that participants had chosen in the previous question were listed and we
stressed that participants could decide themselves which signals they wanted to send to their
team. In this way, it is possible to investigate whether participants were willing to share all the
signals they had chosen with their team or not. Besides this, writing the e-mail would ask
participants to actively work with the signals, therefore, it allows for the measure of actual
behavior. After writing the e-mail, participants started with the second part of the study, in
which they were asked to fill in the Chronic Regulatory Focus measure, the Sense of Power
measure, and their demographics. Finally, participants were debriefed and thanked for
participation.
3.1.3. Manipulation
Leader regulatory focus. Leader regulatory focus (LRF) was manipulated both through the leader profile in which either promotion or prevention goals were stated (see Appendix B for the leader profiles) and through the voice message of the direct supervisor Joost. In the promotion focus voice message (N = 60), after mentioning the signals, Joost stressed that BugShare had to make sure that it was attaining the shareholders’ ambitions (i.e., promotion focus), and that because of this, the company had to focus on growth, progress, and gains. Also, the promotion goals as mentioned in the leader profile were repeated, and participants were asked to be eager and to take as many risks as necessary. In the prevention focus voice message (N = 67), after mentioning the signals, Joost stressed that BugShare had to make sure that it was living up to their responsibilities toward the shareholders. Again, the prevention goals as mentioned in the leader profile were repeated, and participants were asked to be careful and to take no risks (see Appendix D for the leader regulatory focus manipulation, in Dutch).
3.1.4. Measures
Employee regulatory strategies. To measure employee regulatory strategies (ERS) (i.e., eagerness vs. vigilance strategies) we used the scale as developed by Vriend et al. (working paper). Participants were asked to indicate to which extent they agreed with six statements using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). The items for each of these strategies are, eagerness (3 items): “To attain my goals I enthusiastically embraced all opportunities”, “… I was eager to use all possible ways or means”, “… I was eager to take all necessary action” (α = .78); and vigilance (3 items): “To attain my goals I was concerned with making mistakes”, “… I was cautious about going down the wrong road”, “… I was vigilant and played it safe” (α = .70).
Generalized sense of power. To measure generalized sense of power, we used the scale as developed by Anderson, John, and Keltner (2012). This scale consists of eight items.
Participants were asked to indicate to which extent they agreed with the statements, using a 7- point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). For example, participants rated the following statement: ‘In my interaction with others, I can get others to do what I want’ (α = .84).
Problem recognition. To measure whether participants tended to recognize either
opportunities or threats, we asked them to rate each ‘signal’ on importance, using a 7-point
Likert scale ranging from extremely unimportant (1) to extremely important (5). In addition,
we asked them to choose the signals they wanted to pick up. We displayed all the neutral cues
combined with either the promotion or prevention formulations. This implies that in total 8
different problem cues were displayed. Participants were asked to select the problem cues they wanted to pick up. Total scores on the variables recognition of opportunities and recognition of threats were computed by the number of chosen opportunities and the number of chosen threats.
Control variables. We included several control variables in the analysis. Besides controlling for age and gender, we controlled for Chronic Regulatory Focus to preclude that someone’s tendency for one of the foci caused the observed effects instead of leader regulatory focus manipulation (Wu et al., 2008). To measure Chronic Regulatory Focus, we used the scale as developed by Lockwood, Jordan, and Kunda (2002). This scale consists of eighteen items in total, of which 9 promotion focus items and 9 prevention focus items. Participants were asked to indicate to which extent they agreed with the statements, using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). For example, participants rated the following promotion focus statement: ‘I often think about the person I would ideally like to be in the future’ (α = .85); and the following prevention focus statement: ‘In general, I am focused on preventing negative events in life’ (α = .85).
3.2. RESULTS 3.2.1. Descriptive analyses
Table 1 displays the descriptive statistics, including the means, standard deviations, and
correlations of all the variables used in this study. As expected, leader regulatory focus (leader
prevention focus was coded as 0, and leader promotion focus as 1) was significantly and
positively correlated with the recognition of opportunities (r = .23, p < .01, M
promotion= 1.88
(SD = 1.04), M
prevention= 1.40 (SD = 1.03)), whereas it was significantly and negatively
correlated with the recognition of threats (r = -.33, p < .001, M
promotion= 1.57 (SD = 1.02),
M
prevention= 2.24 (SD = .96)). Furthermore, leader regulatory focus was significantly and
positively correlated with eagerness (r = .20, p < .05, M
promotion= 4.86 (SD = 1.13), M
prevention=
4.38 (SD = 1.23)), whereas it was significantly and negatively correlated with vigilance (r = -
.26, p < .01, M
promotion= 4.64 (SD = 1.12), M
prevention= 5.23 (SD = 1.09)). Besides this, eagerness
was significantly and positively correlated with importance of opportunities (r = .27, p < .01),
whereas vigilance was significantly and positively correlated with recognition of threats (r =
.36, p < .001) and importance of threats (r = .35, p < .001). Furthermore, generalized sense of
power was positively correlated with recognition of opportunities (r = .15, p < .10) and with
importance of opportunities (r = .20, p < .05).
--- Insert Table 1 about here --- 3.2.2. Hypotheses testing
To test the hypotheses, we used the PROCESS macro by Hayes (2013). First, we estimated four models in which we regressed 1) recognition of opportunities, 2) importance of opportunities, 3) recognition of threats, and 4) importance of threats on leader regulatory focus (i.e., leader promotion focus vs. leader prevention focus) and on employee regulatory strategies (i.e., eagerness strategies vs. vigilance strategies), while we controlled for age, gender, and regulatory focus (trait). Next, we repeated the above steps including generalized sense of power as moderator in the relationship between employee regulatory strategies and problem recognition. To facilitate interpretation of results, all independent variables were standardized.
To test the mediation effects of employee regulatory strategies in the indirect relationship between leader regulatory focus and employee problem recognition we used the bootstrapped confidence intervals as provided in the PROCESS output. Table 2 displays the results of the regression analyses.
LRF, ERS and problem recognition (Hypothesis 1). Hypothesis 1A stated that leader regulatory focus is positively related to the recognition and importance of opportunities through employee eagerness strategies. In our first model with recognition of opportunities as outcome variable, leader regulatory focus was positively related to eagerness (M
promotion= 4.86 (SD = 1.13), M
prevention= 4.38 (SD = 1.23), B = .32, t (5,121) = 1.73, p < .10). However, this effect was only marginally significant. Also, eagerness was positively related to recognition of opportunities (B = .16, t (7,119) = 1.69, p < .10), however, again, this effect was only marginally significant. As expected, the direct effect of leader regulatory focus on recognition of opportunities was not significant (M
promotion= 1.88 (SD = 1.04), M
prevention= 1.40 (SD = 1.03), B
= .28, t (7,119) = 1.43, p > .10). In brief, we did not find a significant mediation effect of employee eagerness strategies in the model with recognition of opportunities as outcome variable (effect eagerness = .05, CI = (-.01, .19)). In our second model with importance of opportunities as outcome variable, leader regulatory focus was positively related to eagerness (B = .32, t (5,121) = 1.73, p < .10). However, this effect was again only marginally significant.
Besides this, we found a significant and positive effect of eagerness on importance of
opportunities (B = .14, t (7,119) = .2.83, p < .01). Also, as expected, leader regulatory focus
was not significantly related to importance of opportunities (M
promotion= 3.92 (SD = .57),
M
prevention= 3.82 (SD = .51), B = .03, t (7,119) = .26, p > .10). However, we did not find a
significant mediation effect of employee eagerness strategies in the model with importance of opportunities as outcome variable (effect eagerness = .05, CI = (-.00, .14)). Thereby, Hypothesis 1A was not supported.
Hypothesis 1B stated that leader regulatory focus is negatively related to the recognition and importance of threats through employee vigilance strategies. In our first model with recognition of threats as outcome variable, consistent with Hypothesis 1B, leader regulatory focus was significantly and negatively related to vigilance (M
promotion= 4.64 (SD = 1.12), M
prevention= 5.23 (SD = 1.09), B = -.41, t (5,121) = -2.41, p < .05). Also, we found a significant and positive effect of vigilance on recognition of threats (B = .28, t (7,119) = 2.96, p < .01).
However, leader regulatory focus was significantly and negatively related to recognition of threats (M
promotion= 1.57 (SD = 1.02), M
prevention= 2.24 (SD = 0.96), B = -.49, t (7,119) = -2.63, p < .01). Therefore, we found partial mediation of employee vigilance strategies in the model with recognition of threats as outcome variable (effect vigilance = -.12, CI = (-.31, -.02)). In our second model with importance of threats as outcome variable, as expected, leader regulatory focus was significantly and negatively related to vigilance (B = -.41, t (5,121) = -2.41, p < .05).
Besides this, we found a significant and positive effect of vigilance on importance of threats (B
= .18, t (7,119) = 3.25, p < .01). As expected, we found no significant main effect of leader regulatory focus on importance of threats (M
promotion= 3.78 (SD = .62), M
prevention= 3.93 (SD = .51), B = -.06, t (7,119) = -.58, p > .10). Therefore, we found full mediation of employee vigilance strategies in the model with importance of threats as outcome variable (effect vigilance = -.07, CI = (-.18, -.01)). To conclude, given the partial mediation effect of vigilance in the model with recognition of opportunities as outcome variable, we partly supported Hypothesis 1B.
Generalized sense of power as moderator (Hypothesis 2). Hypothesis 2A stated that the relations between eagerness and the recognition and importance of opportunities are moderated by generalized sense of power. However, we found no evidence for these hypothesized moderation effects: the interaction between eagerness and generalized sense of power was significant neither in relation to recognition of opportunities (B = -.11, t (10,116) = -1.19, p > .10) nor in relation to importance of opportunities (B = -.01, t (10,116) = -.20, p >
.10). Thus, we found no support for Hypothesis 2A.
Hypothesis 2B stated that the relations between vigilance and the recognition and
importance of threats are moderated by generalized sense of power. Again, we found no
evidence for these hypothesized moderation effects: the interaction between vigilance and
generalized sense of power was not significant in relation to recognition of threats (B = -.00, t
(10,116) = -.03, p > .10) and in relation to importance of threats (B = .05, t (10,116) = .88, p >
.10). Thereby, we found no support for Hypothesis 2B.
Following from the fact that we did not find a moderation effect of generalized sense of power in the relation between employee regulatory strategies and employee problem recognition, the overall moderated mediation model was not significant. Thus, we found no support for Hypothesis 3.
--- Insert Table 2 about here ---
3.3. DISCUSSION
The results of Study 1 indicate that employee eagerness strategies mediate the relation
between leader regulatory focus and recognition and perceived importance of opportunities,
whereas vigilance strategies mediate the relation between leader regulatory focus and
recognition and perceived importance of threats. However, in Study 1, the effects that we found
for the mediational role of eagerness in the indirect relationship between leader regulatory focus
and the outcome variables of recognition of opportunities and perceived importance of
opportunities were only marginally significant (90% CI). Moreover, vigilance seems to show
stronger effects than eagerness. This may be due to the possibility that participants were more
sensitive for threats than for opportunities (Mohammed & Billings, 2007). Also, it is likely that
the formulation of the eagerness vs. vigilance questionnaire was not optimal, because it asked
participants to think about the goals they formulated during the BugShare task, which might
have been confusing given that we did not ask them explicitly to formulate goals. Instead, it
may be better to ask participants to rate the statements while having in mind the task in which
they chose the signals. In addition, we were not able to support the moderation effect of
generalized sense of power in the relation between employee regulatory strategies and problem
recognition. This may due to the fact that the measure we used for generalized sense of power
was not adapted to the task. Therefore, we decided to conduct a second study, in which we not
only adapted the eagerness vs. vigilance questionnaire, but also used a measure for sense of
power adapted to the context (Anderson & Galinsky, 2006).
4. STUDY 2: LEADER REGULATORY FOCUS, EMPLOYEE REGULATORY STRATEGIES, POWER AND PROBLEM RECOGNITION
To find additional support for Hypothesis 1, we conducted a second study to examine whether leader regulatory focus is positively related to the recognition of problem cues signaling opportunities through employee eagerness strategies (Hypothesis 1A), and whether it is negatively related to the recognition of problem cues signaling threats through employee vigilance strategies (Hypothesis 1B). In addition, we examined again whether the relationship between employee strategies (i.e., eagerness vs. vigilance strategies) and problem recognition (i.e., recognition and perceived importance of opportunities vs. threats) is moderated by sense of power (Hypothesis 2A and 2B). Finally, we tested the moderated mediation model in which we proposed that the indirect relationship between leader regulatory focus and employee problem recognition is mediated by employee regulatory strategies and moderated by power for the path from employee regulatory strategies to employee problem recognition (Hypothesis 3).
4.1. METHODS 4.1.1. Participants and design
To test the hypotheses, we conducted a lab experiment among one hundred and seventy- three students (67 male, 105 female, 1 other than male or female)
2of the University of Groningen, with a mean age of 21.84 (SD
age= 2.86), ranging from 18 to 41. The study was conducted in English. Again, we explained to participants that we were interested in their personal preferences in goal strivings. Participants received money or course credits for participation. We randomly assigned the participants to one of the four conditions, in a 2 (leader regulatory focus: leader promotion focus vs. leader prevention focus) x 2 (sense of power: high power vs. low power) between-subjects design. Below we will explain the procedures, manipulations, and measures. Given that we used the same experimental task as in our first study, we will only explain the differences as compared to Study 1.
4.1.2. Procedure
We used the same procedure as in Study 1, however, in Study 2 we also manipulated sense of power and slightly adapted the leader regulatory focus manipulation (see below for a detailed description).
2Eight participants were excluded for reasons as ‘not fluent in Dutch’ or ‘participant was aware of hypotheses’.