tseng regulatory focus_transformational leadership
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/8/2019 TSENG Regulatory Focus_Transformational Leadership
1/21
Asia Pacific Management Review 14(2) (2009) 215-235(2) (2009) 215-235
215215
Regulatory Focus, Transformational Leadership, Uncertainty towards
Organizational Change, and Job Satisfaction:
Ina Taiwans Cultural Setting
Hsing-Chau Tseng ,Long-Min Kang*Graduate School of Business and Operations Management, Chang Jung Christian University, Taiwan
Accepted 29 July 2008
Abstract
Research has suggested people have two distinct hedonic self-regulatory systems,
promotion self-regulatory focus and prevention self-regulatory focus. Individuals in
promotion focus are sensitive to the presence of gains and positive results. On the other hand,individuals in prevention focus are sensitive to the absence of losses. This study merged
conceptual arguments, and developed and tested a research model in a non-western cultural
background to fill important research gaps in regulatory focus theory. The results of the study
find promotion focus will significantly influence job satisfaction through mediating
transformational leadership. Further, promotion focus is positively related to job satisfaction;
and promotion focus has a significantly positive influence on transformational leadership and
uncertainty towards organizational change. Otherwise, prevention focus has a significantly
positive effect on uncertainty towards organizational change. The implications, limitations
and directions of future research are discussed.
Keywords: Regulatory focus, transformational leadership, job satisfaction, uncertaintytowards organizational change
1. Introduction1Recent management psychologists have devoted increased attention to the causes,
outcomes, and expression of emotion in the workplace (e.g. Rafaeli and Sutton, 1989; Staw
and Barsade, 1993; George and Brief, 1996). Also, research (e.g. George and Brief, 1996)
found peoples work attitudes and behaviors are affected by differences in the nature and
extent of their emotional experience (Brockner and Higgins, 2001). However, scholars have
been less concerned with the psychological processes of the relationship between employees
emotional experience and their work attitudes and behaviors. In contrast, regulatory focustheory (Higgins, 1997, 1998) is specifically concerned with the nature and extent of peoples
emotional experience and, by extension, may help clarify peoples work attitudes and
behaviors.
For the past two decades, two rather distinct lines of theory and research have emerged in
an attempt to improve our ability to understand leadership effectiveness. The main styles are
the transactional and transformational leader, and these have received a significant amount of
scholarly attention. These transformational behaviors are believed to augment the impact of
transactional forms of behaviors on employee outcome variables, because followers feel trust
and respect toward the leader and they are motivated to do more than they are expected to do
(Yukl, 1989b). Transformational leadership (Bass, 1981; 1985; 1997) involves encouraging
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
www.apmr.management.ncku.edu.tw
-
8/8/2019 TSENG Regulatory Focus_Transformational Leadership
2/21
H.-C. Tseng, L.-M. Kang / Asia Pacific Management Review 14(2) (2009) 215-235
216
others with whom they work to develop and perform beyond standard expectations,
Transformational leaders inspire others with whom they work by viewing the future with
optimism, projecting an idealized vision, and communicating the vision is achievable
(Benjamin and Flynn, 2006). Scandura and Williams (2004) postulate transformational
leaders have incremental effects on job satisfaction and organizational commitment. In
addition, transformational leaders tend to be more effective in leading change, partly becausethey encourage people to more toward a desired future state (Hamblin, 1958; Flynn and Staw,
2004). The study confirms transformational leadership is positively related to job satisfaction.
Organizational change is the main strategy for an organization to develop and survive. Hui
and Lee (2000), Piderit (2000) and Ito and Brotheridge (2001) found employees expect
organizational change to cause a state of uncertainty, including loss of status, overload of
roles, role conflict, and reduction of resources. The uncertainty of organizational change will
cause job insecurity. Job insecurity has a negative effect on organizational commitment and
job satisfaction (Oldham et al., 1986). Yousef (2000) found role conflict and role ambiguity
independently and negatively affected attitudes toward organizational change. Role and role
ambiguity independently and negatively affect job satisfaction. Perception of job insecurity
and downsizing will cause discomfort and lead to the inclination of resignation. This will
have negative effects on organizational commitment (Ashford et al., 1989; Davy et al., 1991;
Allen et al., 2001; Krause et al., 2003) and job satisfaction (Ashford et al., 1989; Davy et al.,
1991; Allen et al., 2001; Adkins et al., 2001; Greenglass et al., 2002; Krause et al., 2003;
Vakola and Nikolaou, 2005).
Regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997; 1998) predicts a promotion focus will be
associated with openness to change, whereas prevention focus will prefer stability. Regulatory
focus theory suggests emotions accompanying employees resistance to change may take
rather different forms. In prevention-focused resistance, employees may feel nervous or
worried, perhaps because they sense that they cannot live up to the new responsibilities
mandated by the change (prevention-focused resistance). In promotion-focused resistancethey may feel disappointed and discouraged. They may see the change as a failure to advance,
and a rejection of all that they have stood for in the past, including their hopes and wishes for
their organizations (Brockner and Higgins, 2001). In addition, regulatory focus theory
(Higgins, 1997, 1998) assumes people are motivated to approach pleasure (promotion focus)
and avoid pain (prevention focus), therefore promotion-focused people are directed toward
achieving positive outcomes (by pursuing their ideal goals) and prevention-focused people are
concerned with minimizing negative outcomes (by pursuing their ought goals). Thus,
promotion-focused people may demonstrate an affinity for transformational leaders because
they encourage followers to reach their ideal states. Similarly, prevention-focused people may
prefer transactional leaders because they appreciate the avoidance (Benjamin and Flynn,
2006). Brockner and Higgins (2001) employed qualitative techniques to look into therelationship of regulatory focus, organizational change, transformational leadership, and job
satisfaction. They found regulatory focus was related to organizational change,
transformational leadership, and job satisfaction. In the future they suggested it would be
better to examine the effect of regulatory focus employees emotion, attitudes, and behaviors
in actual organizational settings. The generalizability of regulatory focus to organizational
setting needs to be evaluated (conduct an empirical study).
The Taiwans Executive Yuan, due to the change of environment, in ordered to improve
the efficiency of administration and to reduce expenditure of Treasury, is planning to drive the
merger of affiliated ministries and to reduce the present 36 ministries into 28, with a reduction
ratio of 22%. Taiwans National Police Administration that is to be merged into Ministry of
the Interior and Homeland Security Ministry, according to the merger of Taiwans ExecutiveYuan the population of the research. Many leadership scholars and practitioners (Bass, 1985;
-
8/8/2019 TSENG Regulatory Focus_Transformational Leadership
3/21
H.-C. Tseng, L.-M. Kang / Asia Pacific Management Review 14(2) (2009) 215-235
217
1990; Bennis and Nanus, 1985; Conger and Kanungo, 1998) have proposed that todays
organizations need leadership that inspires followers and enables them to enact revolutionary
change. Nahavandi (2003) suggested transformational and charismatic leaders exude
confidence and engender strong emotional responses in their followers, and they change their
followers, organizations, and society. And regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997, 1998) are
specially concerned with the nature and magnitude of peoples emotional experience and, byextension, may help elucidate their work attitudes and behaviors. Recently, Silvestri (2007)
found polices leadership style and ways of working have much in common with what has
become known as transformational leadership. This style of leadership has been identified
and endorsed across the police organization as crucial to effecting and real change. The
Taiwans National Civil Service Institute conducted these studies (e.g. Hu, 2006) about the
issue of transformational leadership, in order to raise the efficiency of government. Therefore.
It is necessary and important for investigating the relationship among regulatory focus,
transformational leadership, uncertainty towards organizational change, and job satisfaction in
Taiwans National police Administration setting.
Most of the prior research on regulatory focus theory conducted qualitative techniques,
such as conceptual arguments (e.g. Brockner et al., 2004; Meyer et al., 2004; Kark and Van
Dijk, 2007). Even though studies employed quantitative techniques, most of the empirical
tests were conducted under controlled laboratory conditions, with college students or teachers
as participants (e.g. Liberman et al., 1999; Leung and Lam, 2003; Leone et al., 2005;
Markman et al., 2006). This study merged Brockner et al. (2001) conceptual arguments
findings, and developed and tested a research model in Taiwans National Police
Administration setting. It examined the relationship among regulatory focus, transformational
leadership, uncertainty towards organizational change, and job satisfaction to fill important
research gaps in regulatory focus theory.
2. Literature review and hypotheses
2.1 Regulatory focus theory
Regulatory focus theory proposed by Higgins (1997; 1998) deals with how people are
motivated to approach pleasure and avoid pain. Higgins suggested people have two distinct
hedonic self-regulatory systems, first a promotion self-regulatory focus and second a
prevention self-regulatory focus (Friedman et al., 1997; Idson et al., 2000; Brockner et al.,
2002). Individuals in promotion focus are sensitive to the presence of gains (or their absence)
and positive result, seek pleasure, and are inclined to approach matches to desired end-states
as a natural strategy. On the one hand, individuals in prevention focus are sensitive to the
absence of losses (or their presence); avoid pain, and are inclined to avoid mismatches to
desire end-states as natural strategy to reach goals.Higgins (1997; 1998) and Brockner & Higgins (2001) suggested peoples regulatory
focuses are composed of three factors that serve to illustrate the differences between a
promotion focus and prevention focus: (a) the needs people are seeking to satisfy, (b) the
nature of the goal or standard that people are trying to achieve or match, and (c) the
psychological situation that matters to people.
These two hedonic self-regulatory systems (promotion focus and prevention focus) serve a
distinct survival function. First, Concerns--Self-Regulatory with a Promotion focus is
concerned with obtaining nurturance, accomplishment, growth and advancement. In contrast,
Self-Regulatory with a prevention focus is concerned with gaining security, safety and
fulfillment of responsibility (Brendl et al., 1995; Crowe and Higgins, 1997; Brockner and
Higgins, 2001). Second, Goals/ Standards--Promotion-focused people seek to reach the goalsor standards associated with the ideal self, and thus reflect their hopes, wishes, and aspirations.
-
8/8/2019 TSENG Regulatory Focus_Transformational Leadership
4/21
H.-C. Tseng, L.-M. Kang / Asia Pacific Management Review 14(2) (2009) 215-235
218
Whereas prevention-focused people seek to attain the goals or standards associated with the
ought, and as such refer to their felt duties obligations, and responsibilities (Crowe and
Higgins, 1997; Brockner and Higgins, 2001). Third, Strategic Inclination--Promotion focus
and prevention focus differ in their strategic inclinations for attaining desired end-states. The
promotion focus involves sensitivity to positive outcomes (their presence or absence). The
inclination is to make progress by approaching match to the desired end-state, and aninclination to ensure hits and insure against errors of omission. On other hand, prevention
involves sensitivity to negative outcomes negative outcomes (their absence or presence). The
inclination is to be prudent and precautionary and avoid mismatches to desired end-states,
insure correct rejections and insure against errors of commission (Crowe and Higgins, 1997;
Liberman et al., 1999; Brockner and Higgins, 2001). Fourth, States--Individuals in promotion
focus have nurturance needs, strong ideals, prefer gain or non-gain situations, cheerfulness or
dejection emotions, and a state of eagerness to attain advancement and gains. In contrast,
individuals in a prevention focus have security needs, strong oughts, prefer non-loss or loss
situation, have quiescence or agitation emotions, and an inclination to a state of vigilance to
ensure safety and non-losses (Crowe and Higgins, 1997; Brockner and Higgins, 2001;
Brockner et al., 2004).
2.2 Regulatory focus, transformational leadership, uncertainty towards organizationalchange, and job satisfaction
2.2.1 Regulatory focus, transformational leadership, and job satisfaction
Transformational leaders are admired, respected, and trusted (Bass et al., 2003).
Transformational leadership tends to be associated with a more enduring leader-follower
relationship. It is based more on trust and commitment than contractual agreements (Jung and
Avolio, 1999). Transformational leadership (Bass, 1981; 1985; 1997) involves encouraging
others with whom they work to develop and perform beyond standard expectations.
Transformational leaders inspire others with whom they work by viewing the future withoptimism, projecting an idealized vision, and communicating that the vision is achievable
(Benjamin and Flynn, 2006). In addition, Brown and Moshavi (2002) reveal transformational
leadership is typically more effective in public organizations than in private companies and is
more commonly practiced at lower organizational levels than higher ones.
2.2.1.1 Regulatory focus and transformational leadership
One key characteristic of followers who appreciate transformational leaders are their
regulatory orientationthe manner in which they pursue goals and value goal attainment. An
individuals regulatory orientation that may influence peoples preferences for leadership
style is their regulatory focus (Benjamin and Flynn, 2006). Regulatory focus theory (Higgins,
1997; 1998) assumes people are motivated to approach pleasure (promotion focus) and avoidpain (prevention focus), therefore, promotion-focused people are directed toward achieving
positive outcomes (by pursuing their ideal goals) and prevention-focused people are
concerned with minimizing negative outcomes (by pursuing their ought goals). Thus,
promotion-focused people may display a liking for transformational leaders because they
encourage followers to attain their ideal states. Similarly, prevention-focused people may
prefer transactional leaders because they appreciate the avoidance (Benjamin and Flynn,
2006). In addition, according to Brockner and Higgins (2001), given the uncertain nature of
work environments, organizational authorities as makers of meaning may influence
members regulatory focus by using language and symbols. The more the rhetoric of
authorities focuses on ideals, the more likely are organization members to develop a
promotion focus. In contrast, the more the rhetoric of authorities focuses on responsibilities,
the more likely are organization members to develop a prevention focus. This reasoning
-
8/8/2019 TSENG Regulatory Focus_Transformational Leadership
5/21
H.-C. Tseng, L.-M. Kang / Asia Pacific Management Review 14(2) (2009) 215-235
219
suggests transformational leaders may elicit more of a promotion focus in their followers,
whereas transactional leaders may secure more of a prevention focus in their followers. Kark
and Van Dijk (2007) developed a conceptual framework proposing leaders chronic self-
regulatory focus (promotion versus prevention), with their values, influences their motivation
to lead. Therefore, this research hypothesis is:
Hypothesis 1: Promotion focus has a significantly positive effect on transformationalleadership, but prevention focus does not.
2.2.1.2 Transformational leadership and job satisfaction
Research on the transformational leadership paradigm has proven to be promising. Some
scholars (cf. Avolio and Bass, 1988; House et al., 1991; Shamir et al., 1993) common
perspective is by articulating a vision of the future of the organization, providing a model that
is consistent with that vision, fostering the accepting of group goals, and providing
individualized support, effective leaders change the basic values, beliefs, and attitudes of
followers so they are willing to perform beyond the minimum levels specified by the
organization. At the previous individual level, transformational leadership can positively
influence satisfaction, organizational commitment, and productivity (e.g. Shamir et al., 1993).Podsakoff et al. (1996) found transformational leadership was positively related to employee
satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship, and one dimension of
trust. In addition, Bryman (1992) cites various organizational studies of employee satisfaction,
self-reported effort, and job performance. Scandura and Williams (2004) postulate
transformational leaders have incremental effects on job satisfaction and organizational
commitment. Transformational leadership has incremental effects with idealized influence
and inspirational motivation for job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Nemanicha
and Kellerb (2007) found transformational leadership was positively related to acquisition
acceptance, supervisor-rated performance, and job satisfaction. Therefore, this research
combinesH1 hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: Transformational leadership has a significantly positive effect on job
satisfaction.
Hypothesis 3: Transformational leadership positively mediates the relationship between
promotion focus and job satisfaction, but prevention focus does not influence job satisfactionthrough mediating between transformational leadership.
2.2.1.3 Regulatory focus and job satisfaction
Research on the work attitude of job satisfaction suggests people are more satisfied when
their emotional experience at work is positive rather than negative (Weiss and Cropanzano,
1996). Regulatory focus theory suggests employees experience different types of emotional
pleasures and pains. Besides, each type of pleasure and pain may affect their work attitudesand behaviors (Brockner and Higgins, 2001). Idson et al. (2000) found the emotional intensity
emanating from a promotion focus success (cheerfulness) is greater than the emotional
intensity from a prevention focus success (quiescence). This finding suggests work attitudes
(such as job satisfaction) can be experienced more intensely when people succeed on the job
with a promotion focus than with a prevention focus. Therefore, this research hypothesis is:
Hypothesis 4: Promotion focus has a significantly positively effect on job satisfaction, but
prevention focus does not.
-
8/8/2019 TSENG Regulatory Focus_Transformational Leadership
6/21
H.-C. Tseng, L.-M. Kang / Asia Pacific Management Review 14(2) (2009) 215-235
220
2.2.2 Regulatory focus, uncertainty towards organizational change, and job satisfaction
2.2.2.1 Regulatory focus and uncertainty towards organizational change
Organizations constantly require their members to respond to (indeed, and anticipate)
changes in the external environment. And yet, employees often fail to embrace change
(Brockner and Higgins, 2001). Bordia et al. (2004) argued, uncertainty is one of the mostcommonly reported psychological states for organizational change. The sources of uncertainty
could be classified into three levels: strategic (regarding organization-level issues, such as
reasons for change, planning and future direction of the organization, and its sustainability),
structural (refers to uncertainty arising from changes to the inner workings of the organization,
such as reporting structures and functions of different organization), and job-related
(regarding job security, promotion opportunities, changes to the job role, and so forth). Job-
related uncertainties are widely prevalent in changing organizations. Piderit (2000) indicated
employee resistance to change is often linked to changes in perceived opportunities for
promotion and changes in status due to changes in ones job role. Crowe and Higgins (1997)
found regulatory focus influenced the risk of peoples judgment and decisions, so promotion
focus led to greater risk than prevention focus. Individuals in a promotion focus would bemore open to considering change than individuals in prevention focus. Conversely,
individuals in a prevention focus would be more rejecting of change than individuals in
promotion focus (Liberman et al., 1999). Regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997; 1998)
predicted promotion focus would be associated with openness to change, whereas prevention
focus will prefer stability. Regulatory focus theory suggests emotions accompanying
employees resistance to change may take rather different forms. In prevention-focused
resistance, employees may feel nervous or worried, perhaps because they sense that they
cannot live up to the new responsibilities mandated by the change (prevention-focused
resistance). In promotion-focused resistance they may feel disappointed or discouraged. They
may see the change as a failure to advance, a rejection of all that they have stood for in the
past, including their hopes and wishes for their organizations (Brockner and Higgins, 2001).
Therefore, this research hypothesis is:
Hypothesis 5: Promotion focus has a significantly positive effect on uncertainty towards
organizational change, and prevention focus also has a significantly positive effect onuncertainty on organizational change.
2.2.2.2 Uncertainty towards organizational change and job satisfaction
Change management literature showed that apart from belief, perceptions and attitudes are
also critical to successful organizational change (Schalk et al., 1998; Weber and Weber, 2001).
Hodge and Johnson (1970) argued employees would resist organizational change when it
might reduce personal status, influence working content, or working opportunity. Storseth(2004) pointed out job insecurity influences the individual awareness of organizational change
when the individual awareness of threat and job insecurity is higher. Before the organizational
change, a sense of uncertainty in employees psychology will deeply affect employees'
attitude toward organizational change and psychology (Dody and Caplan, 1995). Hui and Lee
(2000) found employees expected organizational change to result in uncertainty; including the
loss of status, work overload, role loading, and resource reduction. Reichers et al. (1997)
advocated because the member obtain make correct information about the organizational
change, they are apt to lose confidence in the organizational change, and reduce
organizational commitment and job satisfaction. The uncertainty of organizational change will
cause job insecurity, and job insecurity has a negative affect on organizational commitment
and job satisfaction (Oldham et al., 1986); Perception of job insecurity will cause discomfortleading to feelings of resignation, and have a negative effect on job satisfaction (Oldham et al.,
-
8/8/2019 TSENG Regulatory Focus_Transformational Leadership
7/21
H.-C. Tseng, L.-M. Kang / Asia Pacific Management Review 14(2) (2009) 215-235
221
1986; Ashford et al., 1989; Davy et al., 1991; Van Vuuren et al., 1991; Allen et al., 2001;
Adkins et al., 2001; Pollard, 2001; Greenglass et al., 2002; Krause et al., 2003; Vakola and
Nikolaou, 2005). Therefore, this research hypothesis is:
Hypothesis 6: Uncertainty towards organizational change has a significantly negative
effect on job satisfaction.
This research merges the results of literature review that promotion focus has a
significantly positive effect on uncertainty towards organizational change, and uncertainty
towards organizational change has a negative influence on job satisfaction. This study infers
uncertainty towards organizational change mediates the relationship between promotion focus
and job satisfaction. Therefore, this research hypothesis is:
Hypothesis 7: Uncertainty towards organizational change negatively mediates the
relationship between promotion focus and job satisfaction, but prevention focus does notinfluence job satisfaction through mediating between uncertainty towards organizational
change.
For the relationship between transformational leadership and uncertainty towards
organizational change, transformational leaders tend to be more effective in leading changeeffort, partly because they encourage people to a more desired future state (Hamblin, 1958;
Flynn and Staw, 2004). Eisenbach et al. (1999) studied literatures for the relationship among
transformational leadership and organizational change, and found transformational leadership
helped promote organizational change. Transformational leadership centers on organizational
change through stressing new values and alternative visions of the future that surpass the
status quo (Gellis, 2001). Yu et al. (2002) verified a relation between transformational
leadership and attitude toward organizational change. Silvestri (2007) found transformational
leadership has been identified and approved across police organizations as crucial to effecting
any real change. Therefore, this research supposes transformational leadership is relative to
awareness of organizational change. Therefore, this study hypothesis is:
Hypothesis 8: Transformational leadership has a significantly negative effect onuncertainty towards organizational change.
3. Method
3.1 Sample and procedures
This study was conducted in Taiwan in June 2007. Participants were from the National
Police Administration employing 500 full-time employees. The National Police
Administration is to be merged into Ministry of the Interior and Homeland and Veteran
Affairs according to the merger of the Executive Yuan reform. Survey recipients were
identified by the Human Resource department. A total of 261 responded within a month. The
valid response rate was 46.80% (or 234 completed surveys).
Most of the final samples were between 36 and 40 years of age (36.30%), 206 were males
(88.00%), 203 were married (86.80%), and 202 in non-manager positions (86.30%).
Regarding their educational background, 56 (25.20%) were high-school graduates, 98 (41.9%)
had graduated from a college, and 63 (26.90%) were university graduates.
3.2 Measures
3.2.1 Regulatory focus
Higgins (1997, 1998) suggested promotion focus and prevention focus are two distinct
hedonic self-regulatory systems. Therefore, this study measured regulatory focus
-
8/8/2019 TSENG Regulatory Focus_Transformational Leadership
8/21
H.-C. Tseng, L.-M. Kang / Asia Pacific Management Review 14(2) (2009) 215-235
222
distinguishing between two constructs in self-regulatory- promotion focus and prevention
focus:
3.2.1.1 Promotion focus
Promotion focus defines employees as concerned with obtaining nurturance and is
concerned with accomplishment, growth and advancement (Higgins, 1997, 1998). A 9-itemmeasure of promotion focus (Lockwood et al., 2002) was used. A Likert's five point scale
ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree was employed. A sample item
form promotion focus measure is I see myself as someone is primarily striving to reach my
ideal-self to fulfill my hopes, wishes, and aspirations. The Cronbach s reliability
estimates were acceptable at .78, respectively (Nunnally, 1978).
3.2.1.2 Prevention focus
Prevention focus refers to employees tendency to gain security, safety and fulfillment of
responsibility (Higgins, 1997; 1998). A 9-item measure of prevention focus (Lockwood et al.,
2002) was used. A Likert's five point scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 =
strongly agree was employed. I am anxious that I will fall short of my responsibility andobligations (Prevention focus). The Cronbachs reliability estimates were acceptable at .75,
respectively (Nunnally, 1978).
3.2.2 Transformational leadershipThe 34-item scale from the Leadership 4X Multi-Factor Leadership Questionnaire was
used to measure transformational leadership (Bass and Avolio, 1990). This scale is designed
to measure four dimensions of transformational leadership (idealized influence, individualized
consideration, intellectual stimulation, and inspirational motivation). Idealized influence is
defined as leaders perceived as being confident and powerful, and viewed as focusing on
higher-order ideals and ethics; Individualized consideration represents leaders paying special
attention to the needs of each individual follower for achievement and growth; Intellectual
stimulation captures leaders stimulating followers efforts to be innovative and creative by
questioning assumptions, reframing problems, and approaching old situations in new ways;
Inspirational motivation represents leaders meaning and challenge to work, team spirit is
obvious, and enthusiasm and optimism are displayed (Antonakis et al., 2003). A Likert's five
point scale ranging from 1 = not at all to frequently if not always was employed. Sample
items from each scale are: Displays a sense of power and confidence (idealized influence),
Helps understand the priority in my career (intellectual stimulation), Focuses me on
developing my strengths (individualized consideration), and Articulates a compelling vision
of the future (inspirational motivation). The Cronbachs reliability estimates were
acceptable at .95, .88, .90, and .87, respectively (Nunnally, 1978).3.2.3 Uncertainty towards organizational change
A 15-item measure of perceptions of uncertainty towards organizational change was
employed (These items were selected from scales developed by Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt,
1984; Hui and Lee 2000; and Liao et al., 2002). A Likert's five point scale ranging from 1 =
very uncertain to very certain was employed. Loss of status refers to events occurring at
work that damaged personal status, power, and influence. Role conflict is defined as a
situation in which a person is expected to play two incompatible roles. Job insecurity
represents powerlessness to preserve a desired continuity in a threatened job situation.
Reducing resources means resources the individual can use will be reduced (Greenhalgh and
Rosenblatt, 1984; Price et al., 1994; Hui and Lee 2000; Liao et al., 2002). Sample items fromeach scale are: Predicting that after organizational change, I will lose my current social
-
8/8/2019 TSENG Regulatory Focus_Transformational Leadership
9/21
H.-C. Tseng, L.-M. Kang / Asia Pacific Management Review 14(2) (2009) 215-235
223
status (loss of status), Predicting that after organizational change, my current job title or
position will be altered (job insecurity), Predicting that after organizational change, my
working technical ability will be insufficient (role conflict), Predicting that after
organizational change, my personal welfare will be reduced (reducing resources). The
Cronbachs estimates were acceptable at .87, .79, .74, and .85, respectively (Nunnally,
1978).
3.2.4 Job satisfaction
The 19-item short from Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) was used to measure
job satisfaction (Weiss et al, 1967). Job satisfaction is defined as a pleasurable or positive
emotional state resulting from the appraisal of ones job or job experiences (Locke, 1976). A
Likerts five-point scale ranging from 1 = very dissatisfied to 5 very satisfied was
employed. The intrinsic job satisfaction measures activity, independence, variety, social status,
moral values, security, social service, authority, ability utilization, creativity, and achievement.
The extrinsic job satisfaction includes supervision-human relations, supervision-technical,
organizational policy, compensation, advancement, and recognition. The Cronbachs t
reliability estimates were acceptable at .88 and .94 respectively (Nunnally, 1978).
3.3 Analysis
This study conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using Amos 6.0 to judge the
goodness-of-fit of these various CFA models. Further, SEM (Structural Equation Modeling)
verified the relationship, mutual influence and overall Structural Equation Modeling was used
to explore the relationship among regulatory focus, transformational leadership, uncertainty
towards organizational change, and job satisfaction.
4. Results
The results of the CFA for all constructs of standardization path coefficients show a
significance level (p < .001,is from .54 to .93) with acceptable measurement system and
construct reliability. As far as Construct Model Reliability is concerned, promotion focus
construct, 2 = 0.714(p = .70), 2 /df = .39, RMR = .01, GFI = .99 CFI = .99; preventionfocus construct, 2 = 4.81(p = .09), 2 /df = 2.40, RMR = .03, GFI = .98 CFI = .99;
transformational leadership construct, 2 = 221.489(p = .00), 2 /df = 2.55, RMR = .02, GFI= .90, CFI = .96; uncertainty towards organizational change construct 2 = 184.90(p = .00), 2
/df = 2.72, RMR = .05, GF I= .90, CFI = .93; and job satisfaction construct, 2 = 46.98(p= .01), 2 /df = 1.68, RMR = .03, GFI = .96, CFI = .99. These result of identification for all
constructs fit index for2 / df < 3, RMR < .05, GFI and CFI > .90, respectively (Bentler and
Bonett, 1980; Bentler, 1990). The results of CFA indicate each construct measurement model
is fit and construct validity is acceptable.
Table 1 shows descriptive statistics and intercorrelations of the research variables.
Promotion focus is significantly and positively related to all variables of uncertainty towards
organizational change, transformational leadership, and intrinsic job satisfaction (between role
conflict, = .36, p < .001, the highest; between loss of status, = .17, p = .01, the lowest).
Prevention focus has a significantly positive relationship with all variables of uncertainty
towards organizational change (between loss of status, = .52,p < .001, the highest; between
role conflict, = .16, p = .01, the lowest). Loss of status and job insecurity are significantly
and positively related to promotion focus and prevention focus. Reducing resources is
significantly and positively related to inspiration motivation ( = .13, p = .05) andindividualized consideration ( = .15, p = .05). Role conflict is significantly and positively
-
8/8/2019 TSENG Regulatory Focus_Transformational Leadership
10/21
H.-C. Tseng, L.-M. Kang / Asia Pacific Management Review 14(2) (2009) 215-235
224
related to idealized influence, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration (
= .18, p = .01; = .13, p = .05; = .14, p = .02). Each variable of transformational
leadership is also significantly and positively related to each variable of job satisfaction (all p
< .001; between intellectual stimulation and intrinsic job satisfaction, = .44, the highest,
between inspirational motivation and extrinsic job satisfaction, = .31, the lowest).Table 2 shows the result of measurement model analysis. To examine the interactive
relationships of promotion focus, prevention focus, transformational leadership, uncertainty
towards organizational change, and job satisfaction, the study conducted SEM using AMS 6.0.
All constructs of factor loading are acceptable at a significant statistical level (p < .001),respectively. It also shows all constructs of the measurement system are acceptable. The result
of the fit test of structural model with acceptable fit indexes, is 2 =115.20(p= .000), 2 / df =
2.68 (fit index < 3), RMR = .03 (
-
8/8/2019 TSENG Regulatory Focus_Transformational Leadership
11/21
Asia Pacific Management Review 14(2) (2009) 215-235(2) (2009) 215-235
225
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations of study variable
Measure Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Promotion focus 3.96 0.52 1.00
2. Prevention focus 3.32 0.76 .18** 1.00
3. Loss status 3.01 0.87 .17* .52*** 1.00
4. Job insecurity 3.25 0.78 .18** .48*** .70*** 1.00
5. Role conflict 3.53 0.70 .36*** .16* .37*** .53*** 1.00
6. Reducing resources 3.31 0.83 .21*** .27*** .51*** .58*** .59* 1.00
7. Idealized influence 3.65 0.78 .33*** .06 .08 .03 .18** .12 1.00
8. Inspirational motivation 3.56 0.78 .31*** .10 .08 .02 16*** .13* .83*** 1.0
9. Intellectual stimulation 3.73 0.72 .29***.01 .02 .06 .13* .09 .90*** .80
10. Individualized
consideration
3.62 0.71 .32*** .06 .05 .01 .14* .15* .78*** .78
11. Extrinsic job
satisfaction
2.88 0.91 .03 .02 .05 .06 .05 .03 .37*** .31
12. Intrinsic job satisfaction 3.67 0.77 .32***.04 .12 .07 .18 .01 .42*** .38
225
-
8/8/2019 TSENG Regulatory Focus_Transformational Leadership
12/21
H.-C. Tseng, L.-M. Kang / Asia Pacific Management Review 14(2) (2009) 215-235
226
Table2. Standardization path coefficients between latent variables and observed variables.
Latent variables Observed variables Estimate p-value
Promotion focus Promotion focus 1.00 a
Prevention focus Prevention focus 1.00 a
Idealized influence .94 a
Inspirational motivation .87 .000
Intellectual stimulation .95 .000
Transformational
leadership
Individualized consideration .86 .000
Loss status .80 a
Job insecurity .78 .000
Role conflict .74 .000
Uncertainty towards
organizational
change
Reducing resources .70 .000
Extrinsic job satisfaction .62 aJob satisfaction
Intrinsic job satisfaction .71 .000
Note: " a " represents path coefficient = 1.
TL
UC
JS
tlf1
.94***
tlf2
.87***
ucf3ucf2ucf1
.80***
jsf1.62***
jsf2.71***
rff2
rff1.55
***
-.18
ucf4
tlf3
.95***
tlf4
.86***
-.01
.70***
.78***
.74***
PM
PV
.20**
.06.02
.57***
.33***
.31***
1.00
1.00
Figure1. Results of structural equation modelling.
Notes: 1. All paths are significant estimate, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
2. PM & rff1= Promotion focus; PV & rff2 = Prevention focus; TL = Transformational leadership, tfl1=Idealized influence, tfl2 = Inspirational motivation, tfl3 = Intellectual stimulation, tfl4 = Individualizedconsideration; UC = Uncertainty towards organizational change, ucf1= Loss of status, ucf2 = Jobinsecurity, ucf3 = Role conflict, ucf4 = Reducing resources; JS = Job satisfaction, jsf1= Extrinsic jobsatisfaction, jsf2 = Intrinsic job satisfaction.
-
8/8/2019 TSENG Regulatory Focus_Transformational Leadership
13/21
H.-C. Tseng, L.-M. Kang / Asia Pacific Management Review 14(2) (2009) 215-235
227
ForH6, uncertainty towards organizational change didnt demonstrate a significantlynegative influence on job satisfaction ( = -.18, p = .10; see Figure 1). This research
hypothesisH6is not supported. This result of research shows lowering employees perceptionto uncertainty towards organizational change is not significantly higher for their job
satisfaction. However, this study finds uncertainty towards organizational change has a
negative impact on job satisfaction that agrees with research findings by Rosenblatt andRuvio (1996); Yousef (2000); Kalleberg et al. (2000); Vakola and Nikolaou (2005). The
reason may be while the government promotes organizational restructuring, the job security of
public sectors employees is guaranteed by the nations laws, therefore, employees job
dissatisfaction level towards organizational change may not be as high as expected. Figure 1
reveals transformational leadership does not have a significantly negative effect on
uncertainty towards organizational change ( = -.01,p = .89). HypothesisH8 is not supported.This finding is inconsistent with the results of many previous studies (Bass, 1985; Rush et al.,
1995; Podsakoff et al., 1996; Silvestri, 2007).
SEM analysis was conducted to examine the mediating effects of transformational
leadership and uncertainty towards organizational change on the relationships of promotion
focus (prevention focus) and job satisfaction. The results of mediated analysis are shown in
Figure 1. ForH3, Transformational leadership positively mediates the relationship between
promotion focus and job satisfaction (indirect effects is .182, .33 .55), but prevention focus
has no significantly positive influence on job satisfaction through mediating transformational
leadership (indirect effects is .011, .02 .55). Hypothesis H3 is supported. These findingssuggest while employees in promotion focus show transformational leadership has an
incremental effect on job satisfaction, for employees in prevention focus there is not such an
effect. However, the mediating effect of uncertainty towards organizational change on the
relationships between promotion focus and job satisfaction is not supported (indirect effects is
-.036, .20 -.18). Also, the mediating effects of uncertainty on organizational change on the
relationships of prevention focus isnt statistically significant (indirect effects is -.103, .57 -.18). HypothesisH7is not supported.
5. Discussion
Merging Brockner and Higgins (2001) conceptual arguments, this study developed and
tested an empirical research model in Taiwans National Police Administration setting under a
Taiwans cultural context, which confirmed the relationship among regulatory focus,
transformational leadership, uncertainty towards organizational change, and job satisfaction.
The results of the research significantly contribute to filling important research gaps (Lack of
empirical research and generalization, Brockner et al., 2001) in the regulatory focus theory
literature. It illuminates the special role of regulatory focus in a traditional police organizationand its implications for police officers while utilizing a non-American setting to allow a cross-
cultural examination of regulatory focus theory.
This study found through empirical analysis that promotion focus has a significantly
positive influence on transformational leadership, but employees in prevention focus have no
significantly positive effect on transformational leadership. Taken together, this result agrees
with the findings of Brockner and Higgins (2001) and Benjamin and Flynn (2006).
Promotion-focused people may demonstrate an affinity for transformational leaders because
they encourage followers to attain their ideal states. Similarly, prevention-focused people may
prefer transactional leaders because they appreciate the avoidance. These findings suggest
employees with more of a promotion focus display higher preference for transformational
leaders than employees with more of a prevention focus. Regulatory focus orientation may beclosely related to leadership style, and a stronger promotions focus of self-regulation may
-
8/8/2019 TSENG Regulatory Focus_Transformational Leadership
14/21
H.-C. Tseng, L.-M. Kang / Asia Pacific Management Review 14(2) (2009) 215-235
228
positively impact employees evaluation of transformational leaders. In addition, the results of
SEM reveal promotion focus directly affects job satisfaction. On the other hand, prevention
focus has no significantly negative impact on job satisfaction. Taken together, these findings
support Idson et al. (2000) that work attitudes such as job satisfaction might be experienced
more intensely when people succeed on the job with a promotion focus than with a prevention
focus. Compared with prevention-focused employees, promotion-focused employees centeron cheerfulness and accomplishment, and have more job satisfaction.
Another finding of this study suggests employees with high prevention may have a more
acute perception of uncertainty towards organizational change than employees with low levels
of promotion focus or prevention focus. This study provides empirical support for the other
study findings in existing literatures (Higgins, 1997; 1998; Liberman et al., 1999; Brockner
and Higgins, 2001) that regulatory focus has a potentially negative effect on employees
perception of organizational change, and a positive influence on employees attitude of
resistance to organizational change. Thus, when high levels of promotion focus or prevention
focus orientation were elicited, employees might actually report more acute perceptions of
uncertainty about anticipated organizational change. In addition, the result of correlation
analysis reported; employees with high prevention focus should be relatively more aware of
loss of status, job insecurity, and reducing resources than those with high promotion focus.
Job-related uncertainties are widely prevalent in changing organizations. Job-related
uncertainty includes regarding job security, promotion opportunities, changes to the job role,
and so forth (Ito and Brotheridge, 2001; Bordia et al., 2004). Employee resistance to change
often links changes to perceived opportunities for promotion and changes in status due to
modifications in ones job role (Piderit, 2000). Moreover, in prevention-focused resistance,
employees may sense they cannot live up to the new responsibilities. In promotion-focused
resistance, employees may see the change as signaling a failure to advance. Taken together,
these finding are more consistent with Liberman et al. (1999) and Brockner and Higgins
(2001) suggestions that change has the potential benefit of providing advancement andaccomplishment, but it also has the potential cost of introducing an error of commission.
Employees in promotion focus were more likely to indicate they would more open to
considering change than employees in a prevention focus. Conversely, stability, or rejecting
change, has the potential benefit of safety and security, but it also has the potential cost of
introducing an error of omission. Thus, employees in prevention focus would be more aware
of uncertainty and more opposed to change than employees in a promotion focus.
Further, the present findings with employees are similar to previous research (Eisenbach
et al., 1999; Yu et al., 2002; Flynn and Staw, 2004) that transformational leadership has a
significantly negative impact on uncertainty towards organizational change. This is likely due
to transformational leaders being centered on organizational change through values and an
alternative vision of the future that alters the status quo (Gellis, 2001). Further, consistentwith Avolio et al. (1988), Shamir et al. (1993), Scandura et al. (2004) and Nemanicha et al.
(2007), this work finds transformational leadership has a significant and positive impact on
job satisfaction. It suggests leaders who are considerate, supportive, provide an appropriate
model, clarify their vision, and foster more common goals among their work groups, have
more satisfied employees than leaders who provide opposite leader style. Leaders who were
perceived by their employees to provide transformational leadership tended to have functional
effects on job satisfaction. Therefore, leaders who provide transformational leader behaviors
will increase employees level of satisfaction in their jobs.
Findings further indicate transformational leadership functioned as a mediator between the
impact of promotion focus and job satisfaction. Another discovery of SEM analysis indicates
employees with a prevention focus are not affected in their job satisfaction through mediatingtransformational leadership. The results of correlation analysis reveal promotion focus is
-
8/8/2019 TSENG Regulatory Focus_Transformational Leadership
15/21
H.-C. Tseng, L.-M. Kang / Asia Pacific Management Review 14(2) (2009) 215-235
229
significantly and positively related to all behaviors of transformational leadership, and
transformational leadership behaviors have a significantly positive relationship with intrinsic
job satisfaction and extrinsic job satisfaction. Taken together, these results suggest employees
with high promotion focus may actually report higher job satisfaction when leaders provide
transformational leadership behaviors. It is likely employees with high promotion focus prefer
transformational leadership behaviors. Such a preference may generate feelings of jobsatisfaction.
Unexpectedly, leaders that provide transformational leader behaviors are not more
effective in leading employees to accept organizational change. The reasoning is similar to
what Podsakoff et al. (1990) reported, that although intellectual stimulation may produce
desirable effects in the long run, it may be that in the short run leaders who continually urge
or exhort followers to search for new and better methods of doing thing create ambiguity,
conflict, or other forms of stress in the minds of those followers. Thus, it is possible when
leaders provide more transformational leader behaviors to their employees, they also may
increase the levels of uncertainty in their employees.
5.1 ImplicationsThese results of the present study provide practical implications for police organizational
leaders and managers. Promotion focus appears to be important for increasing job satisfaction
and the preference for transformational leadership. When police officers preference for
leaders providing transformational leadership behaviors is high, promotion focus has both a
direct and indirect effect on their job satisfaction. Thus, police organizational leaders shall
elicit employees high level of promotion focus. One method is through selection by choosing
people to be unit members (or assigning existing members to promotion focus related tasks)
based on their regulatory focus orientations. Managers may increase the likelihood of
promotion focus success. The second method is by creating organizational conditions that
influence its members regulatory focus orientation (Brockner et al., 2004). For example, the
manager may influence members regulatory focus through using language and symbols. The
more the rhetoric of authorities focuses on ideals, the more likely organization members will
develop a promotion focus. Reward systems in which the emphasis is on recognizing people
for a job well done (and withholding recognition when the job is not well done) is likely to
elicit a promotion focus (Benjamin and Flynn, 2006).
Another implication of the present study is, in the anticipation stage of change, regulatory
focus plays an important role in a police officers perception of uncertainty. Police officers in
the promotion-focused condition are likely more to indicate they are more open to
understanding organizational change than those in the prevention-focused condition.
Management communication is one of the most commonly used methods in reducing
employee uncertainty during change (Lewis, 1999). By probing promotion-focused policeofficers, therefore, the content or quality of the management communication enables them to
gain change-related positive information. On the contrary, in police officers with a prevention
focus, the content or quality of the management communication should attempt to emphasize
the prevention-related merits of the new organization (status or work)(e.g. it is more safe) or
the prevention-related drawbacks of the old organization (status or work)(e.g. it lacks
security).
Further, increasing police officers in transformational leadership perceptions is associated
with a rise in job satisfaction. Silvestri (2007) argued, despite this recognition, there is little
evidence to suggest police leadership styles are changing. On the contrary, the police
organization continues to cling firmly to a style characterized more by transaction than
transformation. Prior researches reported transformational leadership was positively related toacquisition acceptance, supervisor-rated performance, job satisfaction (Nemanicha and
-
8/8/2019 TSENG Regulatory Focus_Transformational Leadership
16/21
H.-C. Tseng, L.-M. Kang / Asia Pacific Management Review 14(2) (2009) 215-235
230
Kellerb, 2007), organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behaviors
(Podsakff et al., 1996). In addition, Brewer and Nauenberg (2003) found job satisfaction had a
significantly negative influence on organizational commitment. Therefore, this study suggests
police organizational leaders provide more transformational leader behaviors. It is likely
helpful to increase the positive work attitudes of police officers. The reason is if people are
initially choosing stability because they are in a prevention focus, then new prevention-relatedarguments about the merits of change would be more likely to increase the willingness to
change than promotion-related arguments (Meyer et al., 2004).
5.2 Limitations and future directions
Several limitations of this study should also be mentioned. A limitation of the research
design was mainly based on self-reported data, which are subject to measurement biases such
as the common method. Moreover, most of this research data were collected at one point in
time. Unfortunately, almost no study, including this one, has used a longitudinal design for
regulatory focus, although this would be valuable.
This study suggests several directions of future research. First, the current study is
conducted in a Taiwans cultural background. Future studies may utilize investigation in non-Taiwans cultural settings. Such research will delineate how individual and cultural
differences in regulatory focus may affect transformational leadership, uncertainty towards
organizational change, and job satisfaction. Second, the present study in regulatory focus
theory measures how employees regulatory orientation affects their preference for leadership
style, but another aspect of an individuals regulatory orientation that influences their
preference for leadership style is their regulatory mode. Regulatory focus represents
preferences for goal pursuit, whereas regulatory mode represents preferences for goal
attainment. Regulatory mode theory distinguishes between self-regulatory-assessment and
locomotion (Kruglanski et al., 2000; Higgins et al., 2003; Benjamin and Flynn, 2006). People
high in assessment critically evaluate different states or entities, such as in relation to
alternatives. In contrast, locomotion is an aspect of self-regulation concerned with movement
from state to state, with a preference to initiate goal-directed movement (Kruglanski et al.,
2000; Higgins et al., 2003). People with more of a locomotion mode were more motivated by
transformational leadership than by transactional leadership (Benjamin and Flynn, 2006).
Future research might find is worthwhile to closely test this other aspect of self-regulation
focus. Third, this research was conducted in a public sector organization. Public and private
sector organizations differ in their business environment, management practices, and staff
attitudes (Bordia and Blau, 1998). Thus, employees regulatory focus orientation and its effect
on leadership, organizational change, and work attitudes should be generalizable across the
sector.
References
Adkins, C.L., Werbel, J.D., Farh, J.-L. (2001) A field study of Job Insecurity during a
Financial Crisis. Group & Organization Management, 26(4), 463-483.
Allen, T.D., Freeman, D.M., Russell, J.E.A., Reizenstein, R.C., Rentz, J.O. (2001) Survivor
reactions to organizational downsizing: Does time ease the pain? Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74(2), 145-164.
Antonakis, J., Avolio, B.J., Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003) Context and leadership: A
examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the multifactor
leadership questionnaire. Leadership Quarterly, 14(3), 261-295.
-
8/8/2019 TSENG Regulatory Focus_Transformational Leadership
17/21
H.-C. Tseng, L.-M. Kang / Asia Pacific Management Review 14(2) (2009) 215-235
231
Ashford, S.J., Lee, C., Bobko, P. (1989) Content cause and consequence of job insecurity: A
theory-based measure and substantive test. Academy of management Journal, 32(4),
803-829.
Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M. (1988) Transformational leadership, charisma, and beyond. In.
Hunt, J.G., Baliga, B.R., Dachler, H.P., Schriesheim, C.A. (Eds.) Emerging Leadership
Vistas. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA. pp. 29-49.Bass, B.M. (1981) Stogdills Handbook of Leadership. Macmillan, NY.
Bass, B.M. (1985) Leadership and Performance beyond Expectation. Free Press, NY.
Bass, B.M. (1990) Form transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the
vision.Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19-36.
Bass, B.M. (1997) Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend
organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52(2), 130-139.
Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J. (1990) Transformational Leader Questionnaire. Consulting
Psychologist Press, Palo Alto, CA.
Bass, B.M., Aviolo, B.J., Jung, D.I., Berson, Y. (2003) Predicating unit performance by
assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88 (2), 207-218.
Benjamin, L., Flynn, F.J. (2006) Leadership style and regulatory mode: Value from fit?
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 100 (2), 216-230.
Bennis, W.G., Nanns, B. (1985) Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge. Harper and Row,
NY.
Bentler, P.M. (1990) Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin,
107(22), 238-246.
Bentler, P.M., Bonett, D. (1980) Significance tests and goodness of fit in analysis of
covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588-606.
Bordia, P., Blau, G. (1998) Pay referent comparison and pay level satisfaction in private
versus public sector organizations in India. International Journal of Human ResourceManagement, 9(1), 155-167.
Bordia, P., Hobman, E., Jones, E., Gallios. C., Callan, V.J. (2004) Uncertainty during
organizational change: Types, consequences, and management strategies. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 18(4), 507-532.
Brendl, C.M., Higgins, E.T., Lemm, K.M. (1995) Sensitivity to varying gains and losses:
The role of self-discrepancies and event framing. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 69(66), 1028-1051.
Brewer, C.S., Nauenberg, E. (2003) Future intentions of registered nurse employed in
western New York labor market: Relationships among demographic, economic, and
attitudinal factor. Applied Nursing Research, 16(3), 144-155.
Brockner, J., Higgins, E.T. (2001) Regulatory focus theory: Implications for the study ofemotions at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 61(1), 35-66.
Brockner, J., Higgins, E.T., Low, M.B. (2004) Regulatory focus theory and entrepreneurial.
Journal of Business Venturing, 19(2), 203-220.
Brockner, J., Paruchuri, L.S., Idson C., Higgins, E.T. (2002) Regulatory focus and
probability estimates of conjunctive and disjunctive events. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Process, 87(1), 5-24.
Brown, F.W., Moshavi, D. (2002) Herding academic cats: Faculty reactions to
transformational and contingent reward leadership by department chairs. The Journal of
Leadership Studies, 8(3), 79-93.
Bryman, A. (1992) Charisma and Leadership in Organization. Sage, London.
Conger, J.A., Kanungo, R.N. (1998) Charismatic Leadership in Organizations. SagePublications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
-
8/8/2019 TSENG Regulatory Focus_Transformational Leadership
18/21
H.-C. Tseng, L.-M. Kang / Asia Pacific Management Review 14(2) (2009) 215-235
232
Crowe, E., Higgins, E.T. (1997) Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and
prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process,
69(2), 117-132.
Davy, J.A., Kinicki, A.J., Scheck, C.L. (1991) Developing and testing a model of survivor
responses to layoffs. Journal of Vocational Behaviors, 3(8), 302-317.
Davy, J.A., Kinicki, A.J., Scheck, C.L. (1997) A test of job security direct and mediatedeffects on withdrawal cognitions. Journal of Organizational Behaviors, 18(4), 323-349.
Doby, V.J., Caplan, R.D. (1995) Organizational stress as threat to reputation: Effects on
anxiety at work and at home. Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), 1105-1123.
Eisenbach, R., Watson, K., Pillai, R. (1999) Transformational leadership in the context of
organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12 (2), 80-89.
Flynn, F.J., Staw, B. (2004) Lend me your wallets: The effect of charismatic leadership on
external support for an organization. Strategic Management Journal, 25(4), 309-330.
Friedman, R., Higgins, E.T., Shah, J.Y. (1997) Emotional responses to goal attainment :
Strength of regulatory focus as moderator. Journal of Personality and Psychology, 72(3),
515-525.
Gellis, Z.D. (2001) Social work perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership
in health care. Social Work Research, 25 (1), 17-25.
George, J.M., Brief, A.P. (1996) Motivational agendas in the workplace: The effects of
feelings on focus of attention and work motivation. In Staw, B.M., Cummings, L.L.
(Eds.) Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 18) JAI Press. Greenwich, CT. pp. 75-
109.
Greenglass, E.R., Burke, R.J., Fiksenbaum, L. (2002) Impact of Restructuring, Job
Insecurity and Job Satisfaction in Hospital Nurses. Stress News: The Journal of the
International Stress Management Association, UK.14(1), retrieved from
http://www.isma.org.uk/stressnews.htm.
Greenhalgh, L., Rosenblatt, Z. (1984) Job insecurity: Toward conceptual clarity. Academyof Management Review, 9(33), 438-448.
Hamblin, R.L. (1958) Leadership and crises. Sociometry. 21(4), 322-335.
Higgins, E.T. (1997) Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist. 52(4), 1280-1230.
Higgins, E.T. (1997) Promotion and prevention experiences: Relating emotions to
nonemotional motivational states. In Forgas, J. P. (Eds.) Handbook of Affect and Social
Cognition Mahwah, Erlbaum, NJ. pp. 186-211.
Higgins, E.T. (1998) Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational
principle, In Zanna, M.P. (Eds.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (30).
Academic Press, New York. pp.1-46.
Higgins, E.T., Kruglanski, A.W., Pierre, A. (2003) Regulatory mode: Locomotion and
assessment as distinct orientations. In Zanna, M.P. (Eds.) Advances in ExperimenralSocial Psychology. Academic Press, New York. pp. 293-344.
Hodge, B.J., Johnson, H.J. (1970) Management and Organizational Behavior - A Multi-
Dimensional Approach. John Wiley & Sons, NY.
House, R.J., Spangler, W.D., Woycke, J. (1991) Personality and charisma in the U. S.
presidency: A psychological theory of leadership effectiveness. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 36(2), 364-396.
Hu, C.N. (2006) A study of Police officers Burnout. Training & Development Fashion,
47(2), 1-20.
Hui, C., Lee, C. (2000) Moderating effects of organization-based self-esteem on
organizational uncertainty: Employee response relationships. Journal of Management,
26(2), 215-232.
-
8/8/2019 TSENG Regulatory Focus_Transformational Leadership
19/21
H.-C. Tseng, L.-M. Kang / Asia Pacific Management Review 14(2) (2009) 215-235
233
Idson, L.C., Liberman, N., Higgins, E.T. (2000) Distinguishing gains from non-losses and
losses from non-gains: A Regulatory focus perspective on hedonic intensity. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 36(3), 252-274.
Ito, J.K., Brotheridge, C.M. (2001) An examination of the roles of career uncertainty,
flexibility, and control in predicting emotional exhaustion. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 59(3), 406-424.Jung, D.I., Avolio, B.J. (1999) Effects of leadership style and follwers cultural orientation
on performance in ground and individual task conditions. Academy of Management
Journal, 41(2), 208-219.
Kalleberg, A.L., Barara, F.R., Ken, H. (2000) Bad jobs in America: Standard and
nonstandard employment relation and job quality in United States. American
Sociological Review, 65(2), 257-278.
Kark, R., Van Dijk, D. (2007) Motivation to lead, motivation to follow: The role of self-
regulatory focus in processes. Academy of Management Review, 32 (2), 500-528.
Krause, A., Stadil, T., Bunke, J. (2003) Impact of downsizing measures on the
organizational commitment of remaining employee-Before and after implementation.
Gruppendynamik und organizationsberatung, 34(4), 355-372.
Kruglanski, A.W., Thompson, E.P., Higgins, E.T., Atash, M.N., Pierre, A., Shah, J.Y.,
Spiegel, S. (2000) To do the right thing to just do it: Locomotion and assessment as
distinct self-regulatory imperatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5),
793-815.
Leone, L., Perugini, M., Bagozzi, R. (2005) Emotions and decision making: Regulatory
focus moderates the influence of anticipated emotions on action evaluations. Cognition
and Emotion, 19(8), 1175-1198.
Leung, C.M., Lam, S.F. (2003) The effects of regulatory focus on teachers classroom
management strategies and emotional consequences. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 28(1), 114-125.Lewis, L.K. (1999) Disseminating information and soliciting input during planned
organizational change. Management Communication Quarterly, 13(2), 43-75.
Liao, G.F., Fan, M., Wu, C.C. (2002) An empirical study of the relationships between
uncertain anticipation of organizational change and the employee's working reaction.
NTU Management Review, 13(1), 227-256.
Liberman, N., Idson, L.C., Camacho, S.J., Higgins, E.T. (1999) Promotion and prevention
choices between stability and change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
77(6), 1135-1145.
Locke, E.A. (1976) The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In Dunette, M.D. (Ed.) Hand-
book of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Rand McNally, Chicago. pp.1297-
1349.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.
Markman, A.B., Baldwin, G.C., Maddox, W.T. (2006) The interaction of payoff structure
and regulatory focus in classification. Psychological Science, 16(11), 852-855.
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),
992-1007.
Nahavandi, A. (2003) The Art and Science of Leadership. Person Education, Inc., Upper
Saddle River, NJ.
Nemanicha, L.A., Kellerb, R.T. (2007) Transformational leader in an acquisition: A fieldstudy of employee. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(11), 49-68.
-
8/8/2019 TSENG Regulatory Focus_Transformational Leadership
20/21
H.-C. Tseng, L.-M. Kang / Asia Pacific Management Review 14(2) (2009) 215-235
234
Nunnally, J.C. (1978) Psychometric theory (2nd ed). McGraw-Hill, NY.
Oldham, G.R., Julik, C.T., Ambrose, M.L., Stepina, L.P., Brand, J.F. (1986) Relations
between job facet comparisons and employee reactions. Organization Behavior and
Human Decision Process, 38(1), 27-42.
Piderit, S.K. (2000) Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional
view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of management Review,25(4), 783-794.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenize, S.B., Bommer, W.H. (1996) Transformational leader behaviors
and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment,
trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 22(2), 259-298.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenize, S., Moorman, R.H., Fetter, R. (1990) Transformational leader
behaviors and their effects on followers trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational
citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107-142.
Pollard, T.M. (2001) Change in mental well-being, blood pressure and total cholesterol
levels during workplace reorganization: The impact of uncertainly. Work & Stress, 15(1),
14-28.
Price, J.S., Sloman, R., Gardner, R., Gilbert, P., Rhodes, P. (1994) The social competition
hypothesis of depression. British Journal of Psychiatry, 164(2), 309-315.
Rafaeli, A., Sutton, R. (1989) The expression of emotion in organizational life. In Staw,
B.M., Cummings, L.L. (Eds.) Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol.11). JAI Press,
Greebwich, CT. pp.1-42
Reichers, A., Wanous, J.P., Austin, J.T. (1997) Understanding and managing cynicism about
organizational change. The Academy of Management Executive, 11(1), 48-59.
Rosenblatt, Z., Ruvio, A. (1996) A test of Multidimensional model of job insecurity, the case
of Israeli teachers. Journal of organizational Behavior, 17(1), 587-605.
Rush, M., School, W., Barnard, S. (1995) Psychological resiliency in the public sector:
Hardiness and pressure for change. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 46(1), 17-39.Scandura, T.A., Williams, E.A. (2004) Mentoring and transformational leadership: The role
of supervisory career mentoring. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65(3), 448-468.
Schalk, R., Campbell, J.W, Freese, C. (1998) Change and employee behaviour. Leadership
and Organization Development Journal, 19(3), 157-163.
Shamir, B., House, R.J., Arthur, M.B. (1993) The motivational effects of charismatic
leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4(4), 1-17.
Silvestri, M. (2007) Doing police leadership: Enter the new smart macho. Policing and
Society, 17(1), 38-58.
Staw, B.M., Barsade, S.G. (1993) Affect and managerial performance: A test of the sadder-
but-wiser vs. happier-and-smart hypotheses. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(2),
304-331.Storseth, F. (2004) Maintaining work motivation during organizational change. International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 4 (3), 625-648.
Vakola, M., Nikolaou, I. (2005) Attitudes towards organizational change: What is the role of
employees stress and commitment? Employee Relations, 27(1/2), 160-174.
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.
Van Vuuren, T.L., Kalandermans, B., Jacobson, D., Hartley, J. (1991) Predicting employees
perceptions of job insecurity. In Hartley, H., Jacobson, D., Kalandermans, B., Van
Vuuren, T. (Eds.) Job Insecurity : Coping with Jobs at Risk. Sage, London.
Weber, P.S., Weber, J.E. (2001) Change in employee perceptions during organizational
change. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 22(6), 291-300.
-
8/8/2019 TSENG Regulatory Focus_Transformational Leadership
21/21
H.-C. Tseng, L.-M. Kang / Asia Pacific Management Review 14(2) (2009) 215-235
Weiss, H., Cropanzano, R. (1996) Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the
structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. In Staw, B.M.,
Cummings, L.L. (Eds.) Research in Organizational Behavior, 18. JAI Press, Greebwich,
CT. pp. 1-74.
Weiss, D., Dawis, R., England, G., Lofquist, L. (1967) Manual for the Minnesota
satisfaction questionnaire. Industrial Relations Center. University of Minnesota.Yousef, D.A. (2000) The interactive effects of role conflict and role ambiguity on job
satisfaction and attitudes toward organizational change: A moderated multiple regression
approach. International Journal of Stress Management, 7(4), 289-303.
Yu, H., Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D. (2002) The effects of transformational leadership on
teachers' commitment to change in Hong Kong. Journal of Educational Administration,
40(2), 368-389.
Yukl, G.A. (1989b) Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Yearly Review
of Management, 15(2), 251-289.