A regulatory focus typology


Published on

a new typology for regulatory focus - achievers, conservatives, rationalists, indifferents

Published in: Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

A regulatory focus typology

  1. 1. 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
  2. 2. 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
  3. 3. 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
  4. 4. 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
  5. 5. This is one paper of International journal of the academy of Organizational behavior management (IJAOBM) Issue 4 (January-March 2013)
  6. 6. 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
  7. 7. International journal of the academy of Organizational behavior management (IJAOBM) 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
  8. 8. International journal of the academy of Organizational behavior management (IJAOBM) Issue 4 (January-March 2013) (36 - 60) 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 1927-565X (Print) - ISSN 1927-5668 (Online) -, Copyright IAOBM 2013
  9. 9. International journal of the academy of Organizational behavior management (IJAOBM) Issue 4 (January-March 2013) (36 - 60) 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 1927-565X (Print) - ISSN 1927-5668 (Online) -, Copyright IAOBM 2013
  10. 10. International journal of the academy of Organizational behavior management (IJAOBM) Issue 4 (January-March 2013) (36 - 60) 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 1927-565X (Print) - ISSN 1927-5668 (Online) -, Copyright IAOBM 2013
  11. 11. International journal of the academy of Organizational behavior management (IJAOBM) Issue 4 (January-March 2013) (36 - 60) 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 1927-565X (Print) - ISSN 1927-5668 (Online) -, Copyright IAOBM 2013
  12. 12. International journal of the academy of Organizational behavior management (IJAOBM) Issue 4 (January-March 2013) (36 - 60) 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 1927-565X (Print) - ISSN 1927-5668 (Online) -, Copyright IAOBM 2013
  13. 13. International journal of the academy of Organizational behavior management (IJAOBM) Issue 4 (January-March 2013) (36 - 60) 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 1927-565X (Print) - ISSN 1927-5668 (Online) -, Copyright IAOBM 2013
  14. 14. International journal of the academy of Organizational behavior management (IJAOBM) Issue 4 (January-March 2013) (36 - 60) 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 1927-565X (Print) - ISSN 1927-5668 (Online) -, Copyright IAOBM 2013
  15. 15. International journal of the academy of Organizational behavior management (IJAOBM) Issue 4 (January-March 2013) (36 - 60) 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 1927-565X (Print) - ISSN 1927-5668 (Online) -, Copyright IAOBM 2013
  16. 16. International journal of the academy of Organizational behavior management (IJAOBM) Issue 4 (January-March 2013) (36 - 60) 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 1927-565X (Print) - ISSN 1927-5668 (Online) -, Copyright IAOBM 2013
  17. 17. International journal of the academy of Organizational behavior management (IJAOBM) Issue 4 (January-March 2013) (36 - 60) 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 1927-565X (Print) - ISSN 1927-5668 (Online) -, Copyright IAOBM 2013
  18. 18. International journal of the academy of Organizational behavior management (IJAOBM) Issue 4 (January-March 2013) (36 - 60) 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 1927-565X (Print) - ISSN 1927-5668 (Online) -, Copyright IAOBM 2013
  19. 19. International journal of the academy of Organizational behavior management (IJAOBM) Issue 4 (January-March 2013) (36 - 60) 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 1927-565X (Print) - ISSN 1927-5668 (Online) -, Copyright IAOBM 2013
  20. 20. International journal of the academy of Organizational behavior management (IJAOBM) Issue 4 (January-March 2013) (36 - 60) 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 1927-565X (Print) - ISSN 1927-5668 (Online) -, Copyright IAOBM 2013
  21. 21. International journal of the academy of Organizational behavior management (IJAOBM) Issue 4 (January-March 2013) (36 - 60) 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 1927-565X (Print) - ISSN 1927-5668 (Online) -, Copyright IAOBM 2013
  22. 22. International journal of the academy of Organizational behavior management (IJAOBM) Issue 4 (January-March 2013) (36 - 60) 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 1927-565X (Print) - ISSN 1927-5668 (Online) -, Copyright IAOBM 2013
  23. 23. International journal of the academy of Organizational behavior management (IJAOBM) Issue 4 (January-March 2013) (36 - 60) 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 1927-565X (Print) - ISSN 1927-5668 (Online) -, Copyright IAOBM 2013
  24. 24. International journal of the academy of Organizational behavior management (IJAOBM) Issue 4 (January-March 2013) (36 - 60) 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 1927-565X (Print) - ISSN 1927-5668 (Online) -, Copyright IAOBM 2013
  25. 25. International journal of the academy of Organizational behavior management (IJAOBM) Issue 4 (January-March 2013) (36 - 60) 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 1927-565X (Print) - ISSN 1927-5668 (Online) -, Copyright IAOBM 2013
  26. 26. International journal of the academy of Organizational behavior management (IJAOBM) Issue 4 (January-March 2013) (36 - 60) 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 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9866180 56 1927-565X (Print) - ISSN 1927-5668 (Online) -, Copyright IAOBM 2013
  27. 27. International journal of the academy of Organizational behavior management (IJAOBM) Issue 4 (January-March 2013) (36 - 60) 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 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9120782 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 1927-565X (Print) - ISSN 1927-5668 (Online) -, Copyright IAOBM 2013
  28. 28. International journal of the academy of Organizational behavior management (IJAOBM) Issue 4 (January-March 2013) (36 - 60) 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 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8416037 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 Psychology, 78(4), 538-551. Retrieved from http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/12359338/commitment-organizationsoccupations-extension-test-three-component-conceptualization 58 1927-565X (Print) - ISSN 1927-5668 (Online) -, Copyright IAOBM 2013
  29. 29. International journal of the academy of Organizational behavior management (IJAOBM) Issue 4 (January-March 2013) (36 - 60) 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 Psychology, 74(2), 285-293. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9491583 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 1927-565X (Print) - ISSN 1927-5668 (Online) -, Copyright IAOBM 2013
  30. 30. International journal of the academy of Organizational behavior management (IJAOBM) Issue 4 (January-March 2013) (36 - 60) http://www.apmr.management.ncku.edu.tw Vandenberghe, C. (2003). Application of the three- component model to China: Issues and perspectives. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62(3), 516-523. doi: 10.1016/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 1927-565X (Print) - ISSN 1927-5668 (Online) -, Copyright IAOBM 2013
  31. 31. International journal of the academy of Organizational behavior management (IJAOBM) Issue 4 (January-March 2013) (36 - 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 1927-565X (Print) - ISSN 1927-5668 (Online) -, Copyright IAOBM 2013