A regulatory focus typology

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

Editor in Chief
Dr. Mohammad Ali Sarlak
Associate Editors
Ajay Jain, Aarhus University, Denmark
Alan Smith, Robert Morris University, United States
Andrew Creed, Deakin University, Australia
Anna Maria Gil Lafuente, University of Barcelona, Spain
Anna Sankowska, Warsaw University of Technology, Poland
Annie Yeadon-Lee, Huddersfield University Business School, UK
Anthony Libertella, Adelphi University, United States
Ching-Chiao Yang, National Kaohsiung Marine University, Taiwan
Chunhui Liu, University of Winnipeg, Canada
Constantin Bratianu, Academy of Economic Studies of Bucharest, Romania
Cyril Foropon, University of Manitoba, Canada
Dafnis Coudounaris, Neapolis University Pafos, Cyprus
Edgar Serna M., Corporación Universitaria Remington, Colombia
Eric Otenyo, Northern Arizona University, United States
Farley Nobre, Federal University of Parana, Brazil
Flora Bernardel, University of Padova, Italy
Fuyume Sai, Daito Bunka University, Japan
ilhami Yücel, Erzincan University, Turkey
Irina Purcarea, The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Romania
Jaime Rivera-Camino, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid , Spain
Jan Kratzer, Technical University Berlin ,Germany
Jan Lies, Euro FH, Germany
João Ferreira, University of Beira Interior, Portugal
Jonathan Matusitz ,University of Central Florida, United States
Jose M. Merigo ,University of Barcelona, Spain
Laura Šeibokaitė, Vytautas Magnus University, Lithuania
LILIANA FARIA ,ISLA CAMPUS LISBOA - LAUREATE INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITIES, Portugal
Luiz Sakuda , Centro Universitário da FEI, Brazil
Mahmud Akhter Shareef, McMaster University, Canada
Manish Kumar, IIM Kozhikode, India
Maria Rosita Cagnina, University of Udine, Italy
Matthew Irvin, Eastern Kentucky University, United States
Nabil Sultan, University Campus Suffolk, UK
Naresh Khatri, University of Missouri, USA
Patrizia Garengo, University of Padua, Italy
Popescu N. Gheorghe, Bucharest University, Romania
Ruppa Thulasiram, University of Manitoba, Canada
Simon Samwel Msanjila , Mzumbe University, Tanzania
Spyros Lioukas, Athens Univ. of Economics and Business, Greece
Susan Kruml, Millikin University, United States

Theodor Valentin Purcarea, Romanian-American University, Romania
Thierry Rakotobe-Joel , Ramapo College of New Jersey , United States
Tiina Brandt, University of Vaasa, Finland
Tomislav Hernaus, University of Zagreb, Croatia
Tsan-Ming Choi , The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong
VÍCTOR JESÚS GARCÍA MORALES, UNIVERSITY OF GRANADA, Spain
Vitor Braga, Porto Polytechnic - School of Technology and Management of Felgueiras, Portugal
Xi Zhang, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
Xianhai Meng, Queen's University Belfast, UK
Xinyuan Zhao, Sun Yat-Sen University, China
YANNIS MARKOVITS, National Centre of Public Administration and Local Government, Greece
Yen-Ku Kuo, Chinese Culture University, Taiwan

Editorial Review Board
Adebimpe Lincoln, Cardiff Metropolitan University, USA
Aminu Mamman, University of Manchester, USA
Ana Aleksic, University of Zagreb, Faculty of Economics and Business Zagreb, Croatia
Angilberto Freitas, Unigranrio University, Brazil
Antonia Mercedes García-Cabrera, Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain
Arto Ojala, University of Jyväskylä, Finland
Asmita Chitnis, Symbiosis International University (SIU), India
Carla Marques, University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Portugal
CRISTINA ESTEVÃO, School of Management of Idanha-a-Nova, Portugal
CRISTINA Raluca POPESCU,University of Bucharest, Romania
Daniel Pittino, Italy
Dario Miocevic, University of Split/Faculty of Economics, Croatia
David Rooney, The University of Queensland, Australia
Davood Askarany, University of Auckland, Bahrain
Dipti rekha Mohapatra, Ravenshaw University, India
Fei Hao, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, China
Fernanda Nogueira, Technical University of Lisbon, Portugal
Helga Rippen, Westat ,USA
Irena Jindrichovska, Prague University of Economics and Management, Czech Republic
Jamal Ouenniche, University of Edinburgh, UK
Jen-te YANG,National Kaohsiung University of Hospitality and Tourism ,Taiwan
Joseph Sungau, Mzumbe University, Tanzania
Júlio Abrantes, Polytechnic Institute of Castelo Branco, Portugal
Jürgen Donhauser, Comenius University Bratislava ,Germany
Justine Mbukwa, Mzumbe University, Tanzania
K. Övgü Çakmak-OtluoÄŸlu, Istanbul University, Turkey
Maria Nieves Perez Arostegui, University of Granada, Spain
María Teresa Bolívar-Ramos, University of Granada, Spain
Mayumi tabat, National Dong Hwa University, Japan
Olli-Pekka Viinamäki, University of Vaasa, Finland
Oluseyi Sode, University of Lagos, Nigeria
Pedro Ferreira, Lusiada University, Portugal

Pilar Piñeiro García, University of Vigo, Spain
Popescu Veronica Adriana, Satu-Mare and Bucharest Universities, Romania
Prasenjit Chatterjee, MCKV Institute of Engineering, India
Priscila Alfaro-Barrantes, Florida State University, United States
Ramanjeet Singh, India
Renata Borges, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil
Roberta Cuel, University of Trento, Italy
Rodrigo Martin-Rojas, Leon University, Spain
Rupsa Chatterjee, calcutta University, India
Ryh-song Yeh, Yuan Ze University, Taiwan
Sara Nunes, Polytechnic Institute of Castelo Branco, Portugal
Shrimatee Dowd-Koniecki, USA
Sonia M. Suárez-Ortega, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain
Timothy Kellison, The Florida State University, USA
Tracy Cooper, University of South Florida, USA
Viktoriia Potishuk, Technische Universität Berlin, Germany
Wen-Chung Shih, Asia University, Taiwan
Xiaogang Cun, Sun Yat-sen University, China
Yong Liu, Tianjin University, China

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 STUDY
ALAN D. SMITH , Robert Morris University, USA

36

A REGULATORY FOCUS TYPOLOGY: RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SELFREGULATION BEHAVIOR, SATISFACTION AND COMMITMENT
YANNIS MARKOVITS , Alexander’s Technological Educational Institute of Thessaloniki,
Greece

61

EXPLORING TIME MANAGEMENT AND ITS IMPACT ON STRESS
MANAGEMENT: A COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY IN UNIVERSITIES
PEYMAN AKHAVAN , Iran University of Science and Technology , Iran
MOHAMMAD EYNOLGHOZAT , Iran University of Science and Technology , Iran

This is one paper of
International 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
markovii@cyta.gr

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

Issue 4 (January-March 2013) (36 - 60)

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.

37
1927-565X (Print) - ISSN 1927-5668 (Online) -, Copyright IAOBM 2013


Promotion focus
Low
Prevention
focus

High

Low

Indifferent

Achiever

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,
38


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.
39


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
40


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
41


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
42


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
43


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
44


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”
45


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
46


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).

47


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
Mean

S.D.



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**

Variables

1

2

3

4

5

6

-.04

Table 2: Descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients),
Pearson correlations
Note. ** p < .01 (two-tailed), * p < .05 (two-tailed)]

48


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

C1- C3

- 6.70

C1 – C4

- 7.05

C2 – C3

- 5.42

C2 – C4

- 5.77

C1 – C3

- 4.13

C1 – C4

- 6.03

C2 – C3

- 2.57

C2 – C4

- 4.47

C1 – C2

- 2.30

C1 – C4

- 3.51

C2 – C3

2.11

C3 – C4

- 3.27

Intrinsic satisfaction

Affective commitment

Continuance

12.85

16.47

8.60

commitment

49


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.

50


60
58
56
54
52
50
48
Extrinsic

Mean value

46

satisfaction

44
42

Intrinsic

40

satisfaction
C1

C2

C3

C4

Regulatory focus character
Figure 1: Mean satisfaction values for regulatory focus characters
32

30

28

A
ffective
commitment

26

Mean value

Continuance
commitment

24

Normative
22

commitment
C1

C2

C3

C4

Regulatory focus character

51


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
52


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
53


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.
54


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.

55


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), 3566. 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
56


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
57


Kark, R., & Van-Dijk, D. (2007). Motivation to lead, motivation to follow: The role of the selfregulatory focus in leadership processes. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 500528. 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-organizationsoccupations-extension-test-three-component-conceptualization
58


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
59


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/S00018791(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), 129148. 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.

60


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.

61

A regulatory focus typology

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Similaire à A regulatory focus typology

Similaire à A regulatory focus typology (20)

Plus de Yannis Markovits

Plus de Yannis Markovits (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

A regulatory focus typology