A regulatory focus typology

management behavior Organizational of academy the of journal International(IJAOBM)

IAOBM

Chief in EditorSarlak Ali Mohammad Dr.

Editors Associate

Denmark University, Aarhus Jain, AjayStates United University, Morris Robert Smith, Alan

Australia University, Deakin Creed, AndrewSpain Barcelona, of University Lafuente, Gil Maria AnnaPoland Technology, of University Warsaw Sankowska, Anna

UK School, Business University Huddersfield Yeadon-Lee, AnnieStates United University, Adelphi Libertella, Anthony

Taiwan University, Marine Kaohsiung National Yang, Ching-ChiaoCanada Winnipeg, of University Liu, Chunhui

Romania Bucharest, of Studies Economic of Academy Bratianu, ConstantinCanada Manitoba, of University Foropon, Cyril

Cyprus Pafos, University Neapolis Coudounaris, DafnisColombia Remington, Universitaria Corporación M., Serna Edgar

States United University, Arizona Northern Otenyo, EricBrazil Parana, of University Federal Nobre, Farley

Italy Padova, of University Bernardel, FloraJapan University, Bunka Daito Sai, Fuyume

Turkey University, Erzincan Yücel, ilhamiRomania Studies, Economic of University Bucharest The Purcarea, Irina

Spain , Madrid de III Carlos Universidad Rivera-Camino, Jaime,Germany Berlin University Technical Kratzer, Jan

Germany FH, Euro Lies, JanPortugal Interior, Beira of University Ferreira, João

States United Florida, Central of ,University Matusitz JonathanSpain Barcelona, of ,University Merigo M. JoseLithuania University, Magnus Vytautas Šeibokaitė, Laura

Portugal UNIVERSITIES, INTERNATIONAL LAUREATE - LISBOA CAMPUS ,ISLA FARIA LILIANABrazil FEI, da Universitário Centro , Sakuda LuizCanada University, McMaster Shareef, Akhter Mahmud

India Kozhikode, IIM Kumar, ManishItaly Udine, of University Cagnina, Rosita Maria

States United University, Kentucky Eastern Irvin, MatthewUK Suffolk, Campus University Sultan, Nabil

USA Missouri, of University Khatri, NareshItaly Padua, of University Garengo, PatriziaRomania University, Bucharest Gheorghe, N. PopescuCanada Manitoba, of University Thulasiram, RuppaTanzania University, Mzumbe , Msanjila Samwel Simon

Greece Business, and Economics of Univ. Athens Lioukas, SpyrosStates United University, Millikin Kruml, Susan

Romania University, Romanian-American Purcarea, Valentin TheodorStates United , Jersey New of College Ramapo , Rakotobe-Joel Thierry

Finland Vaasa, of University Brandt, TiinaCroatia Zagreb, of University Hernaus, Tomislav

Kong Hong University, Polytechnic Kong Hong The , Choi Tsan-MingSpain GRANADA, OF UNIVERSITY MORALES, GARCÍA JESÚS VÍCTOR

Portugal Felgueiras, of Management and Technology of School - Polytechnic Porto Braga, VitorChina Sciences, of Academy Chinese Zhang, Xi

UK Belfast, University Queen's Meng, XianhaiChina University, Yat-Sen Sun Zhao, Xinyuan

Greece Government, Local and Administration Public of Centre National MARKOVITS, YANNIS Taiwan University, Culture Chinese Kuo, Yen-Ku

Board Review Editorial

USA University, Metropolitan Cardiff Lincoln, AdebimpeUSA Manchester, of University Mamman, Aminu

Croatia Zagreb, Business and Economics of Faculty Zagreb, of University Aleksic, AnaBrazil University, Unigranrio Freitas, Angilberto

Spain Canaria, Gran de Palmas Las de Universidad García-Cabrera, Mercedes AntoniaFinland Jyväskylä, of University Ojala, Arto

India (SIU), University International Symbiosis Chitnis, AsmitaPortugal Douro, Alto e Trás-os-Montes of University Marques, Carla

Portugal Idanha-a-Nova, of Management of School ESTEVÃO, CRISTINARomania Bucharest, of POPESCU,University Raluca CRISTINA

Italy Pittino, DanielCroatia Economics, of Split/Faculty of University Miocevic, Dario

Australia Queensland, of University The Rooney, DavidBahrain Auckland, of University Askarany, Davood

India University, Ravenshaw Mohapatra, rekha DiptiChina Technology, and Science of University Huazhong Hao, Fei

Portugal Lisbon, of University Technical Nogueira, Fernanda,USA Westat Rippen, Helga

Republic Czech Management, and Economics of University Prague Jindrichovska, IrenaUK Edinburgh, of University Ouenniche, Jamal

,Taiwan Tourism and Hospitality of University Kaohsiung YANG,National Jen-teTanzania University, Mzumbe Sungau, Joseph

Portugal Branco, Castelo of Institute Polytechnic Abrantes, Júlio,Germany Bratislava University Comenius Donhauser, Jürgen

Tanzania University, Mzumbe Mbukwa, JustineTurkey University, Istanbul Çakmak-OtluoÄŸlu, Övgü K.

Spain Granada, of University Arostegui, Perez Nieves MariaSpain Granada, of University Bolívar-Ramos, Teresa María

Japan University, Hwa Dong National tabat, MayumiFinland Vaasa, of University Viinamäki, Olli-Pekka

Nigeria Lagos, of University Sode, OluseyiPortugal University, Lusiada Ferreira, Pedro

Spain Vigo, of University García, Piñeiro PilarRomania Universities, Bucharest and Satu-Mare Adriana, Veronica Popescu

India Engineering, of Institute MCKV Chatterjee, PrasenjitStates United University, State Florida Alfaro-Barrantes, Priscila

India Singh, RamanjeetBrazil Gerais, Minas de Federal Universidade Borges, Renata

Italy Trento, of University Cuel, RobertaSpain University, Leon Martin-Rojas, RodrigoIndia University, calcutta Chatterjee, Rupsa

Taiwan University, Ze Yuan Yeh, Ryh-songPortugal Branco, Castelo of Institute Polytechnic Nunes, Sara

USA Dowd-Koniecki, ShrimateeSpain Canaria, Gran de Palmas Las of University Suárez-Ortega, M. Sonia

USA University, State Florida The Kellison, TimothyUSA Florida, South of University Cooper, TracyGermany Berlin, Universität Technische Potishuk, Viktoriia

Taiwan University, Asia Shih, Wen-ChungChina University, Yat-sen Sun Cun, Xiaogang

China University, Tianjin Liu, Yong

International journal of the academy of Organizational behavior management (IJAOBM)

IAOBM

Issue 4 (January-March 2013)

Table of Contents

1 CORPORATE CULTURE, PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEMS, AND BEST BUSINESS BEHAVIORS: MULTI-CASE STUDYALAN D. SMITH , Robert Morris University, USA

36 A REGULATORY FOCUS TYPOLOGY: RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SELF-REGULATION BEHAVIOR, SATISFACTION AND COMMITMENTYANNIS MARKOVITS , Alexander’s Technological Educational Institute of Thessaloniki, Greece

61 EXPLORING TIME MANAGEMENT AND ITS IMPACT ON STRESS MANAGEMENT: A COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY IN UNIVERSITIESPEYMAN AKHAVAN , Iran University of Science and Technology , IranMOHAMMAD EYNOLGHOZAT , Iran University of Science and Technology , Iran

This is one paper ofInternational journal of the academy of Organizational

behavior management (IJAOBM)Issue 4 (January-March 2013)

A regulatory focus typology: Relationships between self-regulation behavior, satisfaction

and commitment

Yannis MARKOVITS 1, 2

1 Regional Institute of Education of Thessaloniki, National Centre of Public Administration and

Local Government, Greece

2 Department of Accounting, School of Business and Economics, Alexander’s Technological

Educational Institute of Thessaloniki, Greece

Nik. PLastira 66B, Thessaloniki, GR-542 50

[email protected]

Abstract

Problem statement: The present paper develops a conceptual framework based on the Regulatory Focus

Theory and its two underlying traits, promotion and prevention focus. The framework proposes four regulatory

focus characters: Achiever, Conservative, Rationalist and Indifferent. As well as constructing four distinguishable

personality characters, the paper also examines how these characters relate to two prominent work-related attitudes,

job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Methodology: The relationships proposed are tested on a sample of

521 Greek private and public sector employees. Results: The statistical analyses conducted support the hypothesized

relationships. Conclusions: The paper concludes with a discussion of the managerial and organizational behavior

implications of this approach to regulatory focus, limitations of the field research and suggestions for further

research.

Keywords:

Regulatory focus, Organizational commitment, Job satisfaction, Organizational Behavior, Greece

mailto:[email protected]

International journal of the academy of Organizational behavior management (IJAOBM)Issue 4 (January-March 2013) (36 - 60)

37

1927-565X (Print) - ISSN 1927-5668 (Online) -, Copyright IAOBM 2013

Introduction

This paper develops patterns of regulatory focus based on the Regulatory Focus Theory

developed by Tory Higgins and his colleagues [Higgins, 1997], and examines their implications

for the work-related attitudes of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. We construct

four characters stemming from prevention focus and promotion focus. Regulatory focus as a

personality variable and a “motivational” principle determines individuals’ responses to multiple

stimuli and situations through the promotion and prevention focus mechanisms. We propose that

individuals develop four distinguishable personality characters based on these two regulatory

foci. These characters are named as ‘Achiever’, ‘Conservative’, ‘Rationalist’, and ‘Indifferent’.

Regulatory focus is a motivational principle of self-regulation. As children we learn how to

approach pleasure and avoid pain; however these two sources of regulation (pleasure and pain, or

nurturance and security) differ [Higgins, 1997]. Seeking pleasure or nurturance needs involve a

promotion focus, while avoiding pain or seeking security needs involve a prevention focus. This

is translated into adult organizational life in terms of internalized higher order needs. For

example, self-regulation in relation to hopes and ideals represent promotion focus concerns,

while self-regulation in relation to obligations and duties involve prevention focus concerns.

These two regulatory focus states are conceptualized and typically treated as separate

dimensions, rather than as endpoints of a single bipolar construct. This is conceptually

explainable since people seek pleasure and avoid pain. Therefore, we propose that it is sensible

and meaningful to conceptualize four different regulatory focus characters, exposing

distinguishable personality profiles, according to which extent each of the two different

regulatory foci dominate. Thus, one regulatory focus character is the Achiever, an individual

who is predominantly promotion but less prevention focused; another character is the

Conservative, mostly prevention but less promotion focused; a third character is the Rationalist,

who is both promotion and prevention focused; and a final character is the Indifferent, neither

promotion nor prevention focused. Table 1 displays these four regulatory focus characters.


38


Promotion focus

Low High

Low Indifferent AchieverPrevention

focus High Conservative Rationalist

Table 1: The four regulatory focus characters We will discuss the typology in

more detail below but first we will provide a brief overview of regulatory focus

theory.

1. Review of literature and hypothesis

1.1 Regulatory focus theory

Regulatory focus theory (hence after RFT) was developed by Higgins [1997]. He extended

the notion of self-regulation, the process by which individuals’ align goals and objectives fitting

their own values and abilities, and incorporating two specific foci for that regulation. These foci

are the self-regulation with promotion focus, wherein the individual regulates behavior in line

with personal work-related accomplishments and aspirations, and the self-regulation with

prevention focus, wherein the focus is on securing job-related safety and working towards

implementing pre-determined responsibilities dominates. This result in different self-regulatory

states for individuals which are characterized as being primarily promotion focused or prevention

focused. Regulatory focus varies from promotion to prevention across situations [Neck &

Houghton, 2006, p. 282]. “With a promotion focus, the state should be eagerness to attain

advancements and gains, with a prevention focus, should be vigilance to assure safety and

nonlosses” [Higgins, 1998, p. 27]. To construct a more concrete picture of the functioning of

promotion focus and prevention focus, Higgins [1997] develops structural relationships between

different sets of psychological variables (he calls them “the inputs”) and personal outcomes (“the

outputs”). Promotion focus and prevention focus determine the output according to the specific

input. For example, nurturance needs, strong ideals and gain/non-gain situations induce

promotion focus, resulting in sensitivity to the presence or absence of positive outcomes, and

approaches as strategic means are yielded. On the other hand, security needs, strong oughts,


39


loss/non-loss situations, induce prevention focus and sensitivity to the absence or presence of

negative outcomes, and therefore avoidance as strategic means.

RFT complements self-determination theory (SDT), developed by Deci and Ryan [1985].

According to this theory, employee’s motivation at work is an intention to act. This intention is

initiated either externally or internally, resulting in different behaviors in order to regulate

employee motivation. The extrinsically motivated behaviors are divided into four different forms

of regulation. Externally regulated behavior (the traditional operant conditioning) is controlled

by an agent or event external to the subject. Introjected regulation intends to avoid anxiety or

attain ego enhancement. Identified regulation reflects a personal acceptance and valuing of the

behavioral goal being pursued. Finally the fourth form of extrinsic motivation, the integrated

regulation occurs when the external regulations are fully assimilated and are in congruence with

one’s other needs and values [Ryan & Deci, 2000]. SDT deals with the perceived locus of

causality, i.e., it attempts to provide answers to the question “why is an individual doing this?”

[Ryan & Connell, 1989] Whereas RFT deals with the perceived purpose in one’s life, i.e., it

attempts to answer the question “what is an individual trying to do?” [Meyer, Becker, &

Vandenberghe, 2004] Merging these ideas and theoretical conceptualizations, Meyer et al.

[2004] propose that promotion focused individuals tend to project intrinsically motivated,

identified regulated, and integrated regulated behavior, whereas prevention focused individuals

tend to project externally regulated and introjected regulated behaviors.

1.2 Regulatory focus characters

As we have seen, RFT distinguishes two main motivational foci: promotion focus and

prevention focus. These translate into two distinctive personality characteristics. A promotion

focused individual tries to achieve nurturance needs and intends to gain in all work and life

situations, and prevention focused individual looks to satisfy safety needs, in terms of a secure,

predictable and non-threatening environment. In the workplace, these two characters are likely to

respond differently when someone attempts to control or to motivate. The primarily promotion

focused (w call them Achievers) will strive toward their self-ideal while the primarily prevention

focused (we call them Conservatives) strive for self-protection, stability, safety and security.


40


However, theoretically and in practice, there should be individuals who are not solely either

promotion or prevention focused, but fall somewhere in between or outside these boundaries.

When individuals are neither promotion nor prevention focused (we call them Indifferents), then

they lack ideals and goals, but are relatively ambivalent or apathetic to the environment around

them. When are both promotion and prevention focused (we call them Rationalists), then they

see calculative appraisals of costs and benefits leading to evaluative decisions shaping their

choice of action within the bounds of their own personal values and threats to safety.

The differentiation of those four characters follows theoretically from the consistent

treatment of promotion and prevention focus as two distinct and separate psychometric variables.

Empirically, the distinction finds support by Lockwood, Jordan and Kunda [2002]; they revealed

modest correlation between promotion focus and prevention focus scales (r=.17). Thus, this

argument leads us to our first hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Promotion focus and prevention focus form two independent and

distinguishable dimensions which, in combination, yield four different characters of regulatory

focus orientation.

The four regulatory focus characters experience different job-related attitudes and respond

differently to HRM policies and practices. These characters will perceive their jobs and working

environments differently, and they interpret management policies according to their own

regulatory preferences. They may derive satisfaction from different aspects of work, and they

develop commitments to the organization which reflect these preferences and tendencies. This

means, human resource management, would benefit from appreciating these different regulatory

focus characters in order to recognize and develop effective and motivating management

techniques. The aim of the present paper is to develop these regulatory focus characters,

speculate on their relationships to core work-related attitudes of job satisfaction and

organizational commitment, and test the hypothesized relationships.

Following on from the identification of these regulatory focus characters we move to

consider further their work implications. Achievers would view their job as a challenging

opportunity and a chance to develop and apply personal capabilities, knowledge and expertise.

They would seek out competitive or challenging environments and value rewards based on their


41


job results and performance. Their intrinsic or integrated regulation would tend to mitigate

against the development of loyalty to a particular organization; their primary responsibility are

their internal values and personal goals. They would not respond to attempts to control their

autonomy; they construct their own career path driven by internal ideals, seeing their

employment and organizational membership as part of their personal and professional

development. Employers would need to be cognizant of this personal drive and seek to develop

environments which satisfy their expanding work-related demands and career aspirations.

Achievers would react against petty bureaucracy and excessive attempts to control but would

grasp the opportunity for self-expression. Such individuals would be at home in private sector

employment, often in relatively high risk, dynamic or challenging contexts. They may also be

widely represented amongst the entrepreneurial self-employed.

Conservatives, as the label suggests, would seek out stability and security in the workplace

and in employment. They would be unlikely to change jobs frequently, assuming their basic

needs and life aspirations are satisfied by their present employment. Such individuals would be

willing to respond on HRM practices providing adequate security, enough job and career

warranties. However they may also be resistant to radical change, valuing consistency in

professional or corporate identity. Public sector employment is likely to provide the

Conservative with an optimal job environment and career prospects, being on the whole more

stable and secure than the private sector. Private sector employment in secure and mature

organizations would also be attractive. In an environment that meets their needs, Conservatives

may perform to a high standard and accept external regulation. Moreover, extra-role behavior

that reinforces and strengthens the bond with the organization may also be evident. Their

psychological contract involves regular, predictable wages, secure employment contracts and a

safe work environment.

The third regulatory focus character, the Rationalist, is an individual who calculates the

costs and benefits of his or her own actions. These people are both promotion and prevention

focused, and therefore will carefully consider the courses of action open to them in light of their

own goals, without putting them at an excessive risk. They will tend to evaluate carefully HRM

practices and management policies before they decide to act. Where this evaluation is positive

they would tend to behave as promotion focused. On the other hand, negative and risky


42


situations, including a radical change, would induce a feeling of threat leading to a more cautious

behavior. Where there is an opportunity for personal advancement or gain from a particular

assignment, their motivation to pursue that course of action will be tempered by their evaluation

of the potential of threat or loss arising from failure. Thus, the most risky assignments may be

avoided in the attempt to guarantee and secure their position and status within the organization.

Such an approach may find a comfortable home in either the public or private sector, although

private sector employment is more likely to be in established organizations than risky startups.

Finally, the Indifferent is a character motivated neither by promotion focus nor prevention

focus. This employee would find little interest in work or career and derive little satisfaction

from it, undertaking any specific job either because there is no a better alternative or because he

or she has not considered the case for another job. Indifferent employees would be unlikely to

respond to management practices designed to motivate. While they may fulfill the minimum

requirements for acceptable performance, apathy and under-performance are mostly likely.

However Indifferents would not manifest outright opposition or misbehavior at work; they may

be less resistant to change than Conservatives or Rationalists, having minimal investment in the

status quo. Indifferents are most likely to be low profile employees, neither proposing and

leading innovation nor actively resisting the proposals and actions of others. Such

“disconnected” individuals could be found in any organization; however, the structure,

contractual arrangements and relative scarcity of active performance management systems within

the public sector may better enable Indifferents to preserve their employment status for minimal

effort. Private sector employment may be perceived as threatening, although this is more of an

inconvenience than a challenge to the Indifferents existence.

1.3 Regulatory focus and job satisfaction

Job satisfaction is one of the most widely researched concepts in organizational behavior

and is typically construed as an affective or emotional attitude towards the job (James & Jones,

1980). The position taken here is that job satisfaction is composed of two facets relating to the

extrinsic and extrinsic features of a job [Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran, 2005]. This can be

traced back to Herzberg’s [1968] conceptualization and parallels the external and internal


43


regulation of motivation discussed earlier. Extrinsic satisfaction is the satisfaction derived from

extrinsic circumstances, for example remuneration, management policies, physical conditions, or

job security. Intrinsic satisfaction is the individually felt satisfaction arising out of opportunities

for achievement, creativity, personal advancement, etc. This approach to job satisfaction reflect

less affective content, focusing more on the cognitive aspects of job satisfaction and internal

cost-benefit analyses conducted by the employee [Brief, 1998]. This approach has been used by

Markovits et al. [2007] exploring relationships between extrinsic and intrinsic satisfaction and

organizational commitment profiles, and is further analyzed by Markovits [2012].

Research on regulatory focus tends not to focus on job satisfaction; key outcomes more

commonly considered being goal attainment [Higgins et al., 1997; Förster, et al., 1998], job

performance [Shah et al., 1998; Shah, & Higgins, 2001] or individuals’ emotions [Brockner &

Higgins, 2001]. Few studies examine the relationship between regulatory focus and job

satisfaction [Ferris et al., 2013; Tseng & Kang, 2009; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996; Higgins et al.,

1988]. When people are experiencing more positive emotions and circumstances at work than

negative ones, then they are likely to be more satisfied with their jobs and tend to engage in

organizational citizenship behaviors. In other words, promotion focused individuals will be more

satisfied with their jobs than prevention focused individuals. Since extrinsic satisfaction is

derived from extrinsic reward and according to Herzberg [1968], the existence of this kind of

reward could make people feel non-dissatisfied with their jobs (the “hygiene factors” of a job),

prevention focused employees could seek primarily for the satisfaction of extrinsic factors of a

job (wages, working conditions, personnel policies, security and safety, etc.). On the other hand,

because intrinsic satisfaction is related to intrinsic reward, promotion focused employees could

seek primarily for the satisfaction of intrinsic factors of a job (achievement, advancement,

recognition, freedom to decide work pace and methods of working, etc.). Promotion focused

individuals are more intrinsically satisfied from their jobs than are prevention focused

individuals, and similarly prevention focused individuals are more extrinsically satisfied from

their jobs than are the promotion focused.

1.4 Regulatory focus and organizational commitment


44


Organizational commitment is a multi-component construct which describes individuals’

feelings of attachment to their organization. Here we use Allen and Meyer’s [1990] three

component model of affective, continuance and normative commitment; employees remain in an

organization because they feel they want to, need to or ought to remain, respectively. Affective

commitment is viewed and felt individually by the employees based on their emotional

attachment to the organization. Continuance commitment is more of a calculative form derived

from the individual’s ongoing investment in the organization and the availability of alternative

employment of similar value [Dunham et al., 1994]. Normative commitment in contrast is a

cognitive form of commitment, where the employee views commitment as either moral

imperative or indebted obligation based on their evaluation of relative individual versus

organizational investments [Meyer, 2005].

The literature already includes theoretical justifications for expecting relationships between

commitment and regulatory focus. Meyer et al. [2004] presented a theoretical conceptualization

arguing that individuals who are affectively organizationally committed may be expected to have

a stronger promotion focus, whereas those individuals having a strong feeling of normative

commitment or continuance commitment may have a stronger prevention focus. Van-Dijk and

Kluger [2004] argue that continuance commitment corresponds to prevention focus and affective

commitment should correspond to promotion focus. Kark and Van-Dijk [2007] argued that the

“promotion-focused individuals are intrinsically motivated and are mostly guided by their inner

ideals and not by external forces. Thus, they are likely to be committed to the organization in an

autonomous form (affective commitment). In contrast, prevention-focused individuals are more

influenced by external or social pressure and attempt to fulfil obligations and avoid losses. Thus,

they are more likely to be committed to the organization out of a sense of obligation or necessity

(normative or continuance commitment)” [Kark & Van-Dijk, 2007, p. 517]. Moss et al. [2006]

argue that when employees adopt a promotion focus, corrective-avoidant leadership is inversely

related to affective commitment and normative commitment, and when they do not adopt

promotion focus, corrective-avoidant leadership is positively related to both forms of

commitment. Johnson, Chang, and Yang [2010] proposed that prevention foci contribute to the

development of normative commitment, promotion foci contribute to the development of

continuance commitment (few alternatives), and prevention foci contribute to the development of


45


continuance commitment (sacrificed investments). Recent meta-analysis showed the growing

interest of work psychologists on examining regulatory focus with respect to antecedents and

consequences (e.g., job satisfaction, organizational commitment) [Gorman et al., 2012]. This

could have practical implications for personnel selection, development, and leadership.

Depending on the nature of work, organizations may be inclined predominantly to select

promotion or prevention focused employees.

1.5 Regulatory focus, satisfaction, and commitment

Following all previous argument, we examine how the regulatory focus characters

(Achievers, Rationalists, Conservatives, and Indifferents) will differ in relation to job satisfaction

(extrinsic and intrinsic) and organizational commitment (affective, continuance, and normative).

This leads to the development of a further series of hypotheses.

Achievers should be self-motivated, mainly intrinsically satisfied and affectively

committed; however they would not respond well to attempts to control their autonomy. By and

large, Achievers should feel more job satisfied and affectively committed Conservatives and

Indifferents. They would feel less continuance commitment than prevention focused characters

and relatively little normative commitment to their employer.

Conservatives would be basically extrinsically satisfied; their satisfaction is primarily

derived from safety and security. This would also imply that they would report higher levels of

continuance commitment, as prior investment in the organization and the risks involved in

changing jobs would be perceived as too threatening. Normative commitment may be evident to

a greater extent than among Achievers and Indifferents, however given the Conservatives

emphasize on personal safety rather than overall exchange, it is unlikely to be as high as amongst

Rationalists.

Rationalists should be both proactive and calculative. Rationalists, as Achievers should feel

more intrinsic satisfaction from their jobs, and also more extrinsically satisfied given their more

externally driven prevention focus. Both their affective, normative and continuance commitment

should be high. The affective commitment is shaped by their promotion focus, while the “ought”


46


principle of commitment entails a calculative aspect promoting normative commitment, and the

personal investment aspect of continuance commitment speaks to their prevention focus.

Indifferents would be, in general, uncommitted, and usually dissatisfied, they care little

about work, and are generally ambivalent towards management.

Converting the aforementioned analyses into testable hypotheses, we state that:

Hypothesis 2: Achievers and Rationalists are more intrinsically satisfied in their jobs than

Conservatives and Indifferents.

Hypothesis 3: Conservatives and Rationalists are more extrinsically satisfied in their jobs

than Indifferents.

Hypothesis 4: Indifferents are less satisfied in their jobs than any of the other regulatory

focus characters.

Hypothesis 5: Achievers and Rationalists are more affectively committed toward their

organizations than Conservatives and Indifferents.

Hypothesis 6: Conservatives and Rationalists are more continuance committed toward

their organizations than Achievers and Indifferents.

Hypothesis 7: Rationalists are more normatively committed toward their organizations than

all other regulatory focus characters.

3. Methods

3.1 Sampling and subjects

The sample consists of 521 employees from the Northern Central part of Greece, drawn from

both private and public sector employment. Markovits et al. [2007] and Markovits [2012]

present a descriptive picture of the Greek employment context. However, in relation to the key

differences of interest here (e.g. security and predictability versus challenge and instability),

Greek private and public sector employment is sufficiently representative and generalizable to

other national contexts. The sample was evenly split between private and public sector

organizations and between male and female respondents. The private sector participants were


47


drawn from 33 organizations, ranging from family owned small businesses to medium-sized

industrial or commercial enterprises. The public sector respondents worked in governmental

authorities and tax and customs agencies in secure and primarily white-collar employment. The

mean age of the sample was 31 years (SD= 4 years) and mean organizational tenure of 7 years

(SD= 6 years). Of the total sample, about 84% of the sample was non-supervisory employees

with approximately 16% heading functional departments of their organizations. Educational

level varied; 33.3% having completed secondary education, 24.1% having attended a

technological educational institute, 30.2% being university graduates, and 12.4% having a

postgraduate diploma. The overall response rate was 67%.

3.2 Measures

The scales employed in this study were translated into Greek. They have all been used in earlier

research in Greece and present good psychometric properties [Markovits, 2012]. The job

satisfaction measure was based on the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ, Weiss et al.,

1967] coupled with the questionnaire developed by Warr et al. [1979]. In total 23 items were

included, each scored on a 7-point scale (endpoints 1 = I am very dissatisfied, 7 = I am very

satisfied). The scale is divided into two facets: extrinsic satisfaction (e.g., wage level, security

and safety offered by the job), and intrinsic satisfaction (e.g., opportunity to use ones own

abilities, feelings of accomplishment). Affective commitment, normative commitment and

continuance commitment were measured using Meyer et al.’s [1993] scales with six items for

each form of commitment, also scored on a 7-point scale (endpoints 1 = complete disagreement

to 7 = complete agreement). Promotion and prevention focus were measured using a Greek

translation and adaptation of promotion and prevention focus questionnaire [Lockwood et al.,

2002]. This scale has overall ten items, five for each regulatory focus state. The original scale

comprised fourteen items, seven per regulatory focus, but two items from each state were

omitted as they were measuring promotion focus and prevention focus states with respect to

academic goals and performance. As with the other measures, the items were scored on a 7-point

scale (endpoints 1 = complete disagreement to 7 = complete agreement).


48


4. Results

4.1 Preliminary analyses

Table 2 provides descriptive statistics, Cronbach alpha coefficients and inter-correlations

for the facets of job satisfaction, commitment and the two regulatory focus states. Extrinsic

satisfaction and intrinsic satisfaction are significantly correlated to promotion focus and

uncorrelated to prevention focus, supporting the general argument that job satisfaction is more

strongly related to promotion focus than to prevention focus. Continuance commitment is

significantly correlated to both regulatory focus states, highly for prevention focus and only

weakly for promotion focus. Normative commitment is also significantly correlated to both

regulatory focus states. Finally, the regulatory focus states are not correlated with- each other,

providing support for Hypothesis 1.

N = 521

Variables Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Extrinsic satisfaction 4.68 .97 .83

2. Intrinsic satisfaction 4.65 1.08 .88 .67**

3. Affective commitment 4.57 1.28 .84 .50** .58**

4. Continuance commitment 4.56 1.08 .75 .20** .12** .20**

5. Normative commitment 4.29 1.28 .72 .47** .48** .73** .34**

6. Promotion focus 5.44 .80 .78 .21** .31** .29** .09* .27**

7. Prevention focus 4.41 .98 .67 .02 -.02 .07 .24** .14** -.04

Table 2: Descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients),

Pearson correlations

Note. ** p < .01 (two-tailed), * p < .05 (two-tailed)]


49


4.2 The statistics on characters

In order to test the remaining hypotheses, it was necessary to construct the four theoretically

argued regulatory focus characters. This was achieved via median splits of promotion focus and

prevention focus (Rationalists, high/high (N=118); Achievers, high/low (N=153); Conservatives,

low/high (N=133); Indifferents, low/low (N=117). Subsequently one-way ANOVAs were

performed with the four characters as the grouping variable and the two satisfaction and three

commitment variables as dependent variables. The results from these analyses show that all

dependent variables significantly differ between the characters.

Variables F (df = 3, p<.01) RF characters Mean differences (p<.05)

Extrinsic satisfaction 6.31 C1 – C3 - 5.25

C1 – C4 - 4.79

Intrinsic satisfaction 12.85 C1- C3 - 6.70

C1 – C4 - 7.05

C2 – C3 - 5.42

C2 – C4 - 5.77

Affective commitment 16.47 C1 – C3 - 4.13

C1 – C4 - 6.03

C2 – C3 - 2.57

C2 – C4 - 4.47

Continuance

commitment8.60 C1 – C2 - 2.30

C1 – C4 - 3.51

C2 – C3 2.11

C3 – C4 - 3.27


50


Normative commitment 14.26 C1 – C2 - 2.79

C1 – C3 - 3.19

C1 – C4 - 6.14

C2 – C4 - 3.34

C3 – C4 - 2.94

Table 3: Analysis of variance and Scheffe’s test for mean differences for satisfaction and

commitment

Notes: C1 = Indifferent, C2 = Conservative, C3 = Achiever, C4 = Rationalist

Scheffe’s f tests for the mean differences between the regulatory focus characters provide more

detailed information regarding Hypotheses 2 to 7. For intrinsic satisfaction, Achievers and Rationalists

reported significantly higher levels than both Conservatives and Indifferents, supporting Hypothesis 2.

For extrinsic satisfaction, the results were less supportive. In contrast to the hypothesized relationships,

Achievers and Rationalists reported significantly higher levels of extrinsic satisfaction than Indifferents

while Conservatives did not differ significantly from any other group. Thus, data do not support

Hypothesis 3 which predicted that characters high in prevention focus would report higher extrinsic

satisfaction. However, in support of Hypothesis 4, Indifferents were the least satisfied of the four

regulatory focus characters, although not significantly different from Conservatives.

Turning next to the commitment variables, we will first consider affective commitment. The data

support Hypothesis 5 with Achievers and Rationalists being significantly more affectively committed

than both Conservatives and Indifferents. The overall pattern of affective commitment across the four

characters is in line with what had been hypothesized. For continuance commitment, the data also support

Hypothesis 6. Conservatives and Rationalists report significantly higher levels of continuance

commitment than Indifferents and Achievers. Hypothesis 7 similarly is supported by the data; Rationalists

report significantly higher levels of normative commitment than any other character.


51


Regulatory focus character

C4C3C2C1

Mea

n va

lue

60

58

56

54

52

50

48

46

44

4240

Extrinsic

satisfaction

Intrinsic

satisfaction

Figure 1: Mean satisfaction values for regulatory focus characters

Regulatory focus character

C4C3C2C1

Mea

n va

lue

32

30

28

26

24

22

Affective

commitment

Continuance

commitment

Normative

commitment


52


Figure 2: Mean commitment values for regulatory focus characters

5. Discussion

This paper has sought to clarify the relationships between regulatory focus, job satisfaction and

organizational commitment, using a conceptual framework based on four regulatory focus

characters. Initially, the four regulatory focus characters were identified and described, and then

data were presented exploring this interpretation and testing the predictions regarding the

influence of those characters on other work-related attitudes. The results demonstrate that the

promotion focused characters, Achievers and Rationalists, have higher levels of intrinsic

satisfaction than Conservatives and Indifferents, which are both low on promotion focus.

Contrary to our expectations, however, these “high promotion” characters were also more

extrinsically satisfied than “low promotion” characters. This might be explained by considering

the behaviors expected of highly promotion focused individuals. They are likely to be more

striving towards achievement, perhaps taking greater risks but accordingly also receiving greater

(extrinsic) reward in return. This is an interesting implication for Organizational Behavior and

especially for the Motivation Theory. Rationalists in particular, appreciate this recognition of

commitment and would be willing to “go the extra mile” for a valued employer; they are more

wiling to present organizational citizenship behaviors. For Rationalists, OCBs are internalized

via a rational decision-making process that involves extrinsic and tangible rewards. As far as the

Achievers are concerned, the attention and concern for a work environment which meets their

idealistic aspirations in pursuit of their personal values may also incorporate expectations of high

levels of extrinsic reward; the interplay of motivation theories, perception models and leadership

and influence tactics is more than evident in this case. Alternatively, the internally regulated

behavior of such characters may result in a lack of concern for extrinsic “moderate” rewards;

however, they may generate adequate satisfaction as long as they express their personal and

career ideals to the fullest extent.

The results regarding commitment confirmed all hypotheses. Promotion focused characters

expressed higher levels of affective commitment to their organization. However that desire

amongst Achievers is defined by the opportunity to pursue valued objectives. They have little


53


sense of loyalty to the organization, they do not feel trapped within the organization, nor do they

demonstrate any particular sense of obligation to the employer based on past exchanges; they are

not typical “team players”, nor they comply to classical leadership techniques; especially those

ones based on authority, obedience, and compliance to a higher figure. Rationalists, however,

have both a greater concern for personal security and a strong sense of obligation, and this is

recognized and reflected in their higher levels of continuance and normative commitment.

Conservatives, who share these concerns do not internalize the contribution of the organization

and therefore do not display normative commitment. Indifferents are the least satisfied and least

committed of all four characters. Thus, the feeling of satisfaction with one’s job is better

associated with a promotion focus, as is the development of affective commitment (want to stay)

towards one’s organization. On the other hand, the feelings of continuance commitment (need to

stay) are associated with prevention focus. Normative commitment (feeling one ought to stay)

seem to emerge only when both prevention and promotion focus are present, integrating the

affective and calculative aspects of commitment in an evaluative judgment.

The implications for HRM practitioners and OB theorists are significant, given the clear

associations between regulatory focus and these two core job-related attitudes. For Achievers,

with their focus on pursuit of their own ideals, flexibility and the availability of intrinsic reward

are likely to be most effective in enhancing performance. Micro-management and target setting

are likely to be met with voluntary resignations, although linking the availability of rewards to

the successful completion of tasks which Achievers find stimulating and worthwhile may be

effective in generating higher levels of performance, although probably not any greater sense of

loyalty. Positive leadership and supportive management are the cornerstones of policies

intending to motivate Achievers. Conservatives are likely to be good “company men”. They are

reliable and to an extent predictable, although they may not respond positively to organizational

change. Highly contingent reward packages where individual responsibilities are ill-defined or

difficult to measure also will be unpopular among conservatives. On the positive side, they will

perform well as long as they feel their rewards are fair, and may well be good organizational

citizens. Well-structured and clearly defined goals and targets are essential for leaders working

with Conservatives. Indifferents may at first sight appear to be the type of employee best

avoided. This is not entirely accurate, however an organization consisting of only the three other


54


characters would become unstable as the personal and calculative interpretations of the

employees could pull the company apart. For Indifferents, work is simply not that central. They

bring a balance to what might otherwise become a highly strung environment. They may be the

cool head through which change is considered without the personal or organizational vested

interests of the Achievers or the Conservatives. While they may not be the most dynamic or

challenging group of employees, they probably do what is required. OB theorists may see that

Indifferents are the fourth pillar of organizational stability and essential element for an effective

change and conflict management. Rationalists live and breathe their organization. Their

attachment to the organization coupled with the striving characteristic of a promotion focus

would make them good long-term investments. However, this needs to be reciprocated by a

secure and safe workplace and an employment contract which demonstrates commitment on the

part of the employer. While Achievers may drive change, Rationalists will make it happen, both

through their own actions and through convincing Conservatives and motivating Indifferents.

Limitations

The major limitation of this research is the cross-sectional data generated in self-reported

questionnaires that raise the potential for common method variance. However, it is difficult to

examine individual attitudes such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment other than

through self report [Vandenberghe, 2003]. Third party reports of job satisfaction or behavioral

assessment of commitment or citizenship behavior are clearly avenues to be pursued in future,

however given that the primary contribution of this paper was the theoretical exploration of the

four regulatory focus characters, these further lines of research remain to be developed. The data

were generated from convenience sampling of public and private sector employees. This also

may limit the generalizability of the findings, although the sample sizes could mediate this

shortcoming. Future studies or replications should consider this shortcoming and aim for larger

sample sizes.


55


6. Recommendations for Future Research

It is essential to test the stability and generalizability of this conceptual framework. Clearly some

of the hypotheses generated regarding behavioral outcomes of these regulatory focus characters

are directly testable and will be the subject of future research. In particular the present empirical

study needs further replication in other cultural contexts either as part of a longitudinal study in

the same cultural context, or as a cross-cultural and cross-national study. This framework could

be extended and related more closely to Self-Determination Theory, thus generating a more

general model for the motivational and attitudinal processes within organizations. Qualitative

study of the more personalized and specific areas of regulatory focus and organizational and job

attitudes may also prove illuminating. This can be further connected to qualitative material

selected by managerial assessments of employees’ self-regulation and attitudes towards their job

and organization.


56


REFERENCES

Allen, N.J., & Meyer, J.P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance

and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology,

63(1), 1-18. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x

Brief, A.P. (1998). Attitudes in and around organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Brockner, J., & Higgins, E.T. (2001). Regulatory focus theory: Implications for the study of

emotions at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(1), 35-

66. doi: 10.1006/obhd.2001.2972

Cooper-Hakim, A., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). The construct of work commitment: Testing an

integrative framework. Psychological Bulletin, 131(2), 241-259. Retrieved from

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15740421

Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human

behaviour, New York: Plenum.

Dunham, R.B., Grube, J.A., & Castaňeda, M.B. (1994). Organizational commitment: The utility

of an integrative definition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(3), 370-380. doi:

10.1037/0021-9010.79.3.370

Ferris, D.L., Johnson, R.E, Rosen, C.C., Djurdjevic, E., Chang, C.H., & Tan, J.A. (2013) When

is success not satisfying? Integrating regulatory focus and approach/avoidance

motivation theories to explain the relation between core self-evaluation and job

satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 342-353. doi: 10.1037/a0029776

Förster, J., Higgins E.T., & Idson, L.C. (1998). Approach and avoidance strength during goal

attainment: Regulatory focus and the “goal looms larger” effect. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 75(5), 1115-1131. Retrieved from



57


Gorman, C.A, Meriac, J.P., Overstreet, B.L., Apocada, S., McIntyre, A.L., Park, P., & Godbey,

G.N. (2012). A meta-analysis of the regulatory focus nomological work: Work-related

antecedents and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(1), 160-172. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.07.005

Herzberg, F. (1968). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business

Review, 46, 53-62.

Higgins, E.T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. In

M.P. Zanna (ed.). Advances in experimental social psychology, 30. New York:

Academic Press. 1-46.

Higgins, E.T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280-1300. Retrieved

from http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1997-43865-002

Higgins, E.T., Shah, J., & Friedman, R.S. (1997). Emotional responses to goal attainment:

Strength of regulatory focus as moderator. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 72(3), 515-525. Retrieved from


Higgins, E.T., Simon, M., & Wells, R.S. (1988). A model of evaluative processes and “job

satisfaction”: When differences in standards make a difference. In R. Cardy, J. Newman

& S.M. Puffer (eds.). Advances in information processing in organizations, 3.

Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. 81-105.

James, L.R., & Jones, A.P. (1980). Perceived job characteristics and job satisfaction: An

examination of reciprocal causation. Personnel Psychology, 33(1), 97-135. doi:

10.1111/j.1744-6570.1980.tb02167.x

Johnson, R.E., Chang, C.H., & Yang, L.Q. (2010). Commitment and motivation at work: The

relevance of employee identity and regulatory focus, Academy of Management Review,

35(2), 226-245. Retrieved from http://www.psy.sdnu.edu.cn/mgpsy/s/pdf/03.pdf


58


Kark, R., & Van-Dijk, D. (2007). Motivation to lead, motivation to follow: The role of the self-

regulatory focus in leadership processes. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 500-

528. doi: 10.2307/20159313

Lockwood, P., Jordan, C.H., & Kunda, Z. (2002). Motivation by positive or negative role

models: Regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 83(4), 854-864. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.83.4.854

Markovits, Y. (2012). The committed workforce: Evidence from the field, Newcastle-upon-Tyne:

Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Markovits, Y., Davis, A.J., & van Dick, R. (2007). Organizational commitment profiles and job

satisfaction among Greek private and public sector employees. International Journal of

Cross Cultural Management, 7(1), 77-99. doi: 10.1177/1470595807075180

McClelland, G.H., & Judd, C.M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and

moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114(2), 376-390. Retrieved from


Meyer, J.P. (2005). Normative Commitment: A New Look at the Meaning and Implications of

Employee Obligation. Paper presented at the 12th EAWOP Congress. Istanbul. Turkey.

Meyer, J.P., Becker, T.E., & Vandenberghe, C. (2004). Employee commitment and motivation:

A conceptual analysis and integrative model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6),

991-1007. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.991

Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J., & Smith, C.A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations:

Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied


http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/12359338/commitment-organizations-

occupations-extension-test-three-component-conceptualization


59


Moss, S., Ritossa, D., & Ngu, S. (2006). The effect of follower regulatory focus and extraversion

on leadership behavior. Journal of Individual Differences, 27(2), 93-107. doi:

10.1027/1614-0001.27.2.93

Neck, C.P., & Houghton, J.D. (2006). Two decades of self-leadership theory and research: Past

developments, present trends, and future possibilities. Journal of Managerial

Psychology, 21(4), 270-295. doi: 10.1108/02683940610663097

Powell, D.M., & Meyer, J.P. (2004). Side-bet theory and the three-component model of

organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65(1), 157-177. doi:

10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00050-2

Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic

motivation, social development and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.

doi: 10.1037110003-066X.55.1.68

Ryan, R.M., & Connell, J.P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining

reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5),

749-761. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2810024

Shah, J., & Higgins, E.T. (2001). Regulatory concerns and appraisal efficiency: The general

impact of promotion and prevention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

80(5), 693-705. doi: 10.1037//0022-35I4.80.5.693

Shah, J., Higgins, E.T., & Friedman, R.S. (1998). Performance incentives and means: How

regulatory focus influences goal attainment. Journal of Personality and Social



Tseng. H.C., & Kang, L.M. (2009). Regulatory focus, transofrmational leadership, uncertainty

towards organizational change, and job satisfaction: In a Taiwan’s cultural setting. Asia

Pacific Management Review, 14(2), 215-235. Retrieved from


60


http://www.apmr.management.ncku.edu.tw

Vandenberghe, C. (2003). Application of the three- component model to China: Issues and

perspectives. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62(3), 516-523. doi: 10.1016/S0001-

8791(02)00066-0

Van-Dijk, D., & Kluger, A.N. (2004). Feedback sign effect on motivation: Is it moderated by

regulatory focus? Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53(1), 113-135. doi:

10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00163

Warr, P., Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1979). Scales for the measurement of some work attitudes and

aspects of psychological well-being. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 52(2), 129-

148. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8325.1979.tb00448.x

Weiss, H., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affects events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure,

causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. In B.M. Staw & L.L. Cummings

(eds.). Research in organizational behavior, 18. 1-74. Greenwich, CT: JA Press

Weiss, D.J., Dawis, R.V., England, G.W., & Lofquist, L.H. (1967). Manual for the Minnesota

Satisfaction Questionnaire, Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation Bulletin, 22:

120.


61


Author’s biography

Yannis Markovits teaches organizational behavior and human resource management in Greece.

He received his PhD in Management (work/organizational psychology) from Aston Business

School, Birmingham. He has worked both in public administration and private sector

organizations for more than twenty years in management and HR positions, and teaches at the

Institute of Education, National Centre of Public Administration and Local Government and at

the Alexander’s Technological Educational Institute. His research interests centre on

organizational commitment, job satisfaction, employee motivation, and employees’ training. Dr.

Markovits has authored articles, books, and book chapters, and presented his work in various

international scientific conferences. He serves as reviewer on academic journals, and he is

associate editor of the International Journal of the Academy of Organizational Behavior

Management and member of the editorial review board of the International Journal of

Management Science and Information Technology. He has also participated and supervised

various research projects and worked as national expert on missions and projects in Greece and

in the EU.

A regulatory focus typology

Business

Transcript of A regulatory focus typology