tseng regulatory focus_transformational leadership

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


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;


3/21


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.


4/21


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


5/21


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.


6/21


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.,


7/21


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


8/21


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


9/21


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


10/21


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 (


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


12/21


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.


13/21


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


14/21


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


15/21


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


16/21


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.


17/21


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.


18/21


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.


19/21


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.


20/21


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.


21/21


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.

tseng regulatory focus_transformational leadership

Documents