Report Study in Relationship between Leader-Follower Self Regulation Congruency

Description
Self-regulated learning (SRL) is learning that is guided by metacognition (thinking about one's thinking), strategic action (planning, monitoring, and evaluating personal progress against a standard), and motivation to learn.

Report Study In Relationship between Leader-Follower Self Regulation Congruency Birds of a feather Flock together
aBstract
In this chapter we integrate recent theories of motivation and leadership that are focused on the self. We draw on self-regulatory focus theory and on self- concept based theories of leadership in order to develop a conceptual frame- work for understanding the quality of the leader-member exchange (LMX) relationship that are formed between leaders and their followers. We propose that leaders and followers with a congruent chronic regulatory focus (i.e., promotion congruency or prevention congruency) are likely to form a high- er quality LMX relationship in comparison to a leader-follower dyad with 181

182

r. KarK and D. Van-DijK

a noncongruent regulatory focus. Furthermore, we suggest that promotioncongruent dyads will form stronger exchange relationships in comparison to prevention-congruent individuals. We also explore the different expected outcomes (cognitions, emotions, and task behaviors) of the various forms of leader-follower dyads (congruent and noncongruent), in terms of both promotionoriented and prevention-oriented outcomes. Last, we discuss the implications of this framework for both theory and research for dyads, teams, and organizations.

iNtrodUctioN Recently, there has been growing interest in understanding the influence of leadership on followers as a process related to followers' identity and selfconcept (e.g., Kark & Shamir, 2002; Kark & Van Dijk, 2007; Lord &Brown, 2004; Lord, Brown, & Freiberg, 1999). Substantial research on leader-member exchange (LMX) has contributed to our understanding of leader-follower (or super visor-subordinate) relationships (Gerstner &Day, 1997; Graen, 2006). Most LMX research has indicated that build- ing high-quality LMX has beneficial effects on the well-being of the dyad and on work and organizational outcomes. However, little attention has been paid to the question of how followers' and leaders' self-perceptions contribute to the formation of the leader-follower dyadic relationship and to related outcomes. In this chapter we propose that leaders' and fol- lowers' self-regulator y focus (i.e., prevention vs. promotion focus) plays a central role in determining the quality of their LMX relationships and work outcomes. The goal of this chapter is to develop a conceptual framework to ad- vance further studies on the underlying mechanisms that enable leaders and followers to form high-quality LMX relationships, and to analyze these dyadic relationships in terms of both promotion-oriented and prevention- oriented outcomes. To establish this framework we draw on LMX theory (e.g., Dansereau, Cashman, & Graen, 1973; Graen, 1976; Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) as well as identity and selfconcept-based theories of leadership (e.g., Kark & Shamir, 2002; Kluger &Ganzach, 2004; Lord & Brown, 2004; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993; van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003) and the theory of regulatory focus (Higgins, 1997, 1998).

self-identity and leadership theories Research on leadership and the self has mostly focused on different levels of the self-concept: the relational self and the collective self (e.g.,

Birds of a Feather Flock together

183

Kark & Shamir, 2002; Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003; Lord & Brown, 2004). A recent extensive review of the leadership and the self literature (van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, De Cermer, & Hogg, 2004) concludes by remarking that it is important to develop a theory that considers dif- ferent aspects of follower self-concept that have not yet been considered. According to van Knippenberg and his coauthors (2004), one promising direction for future development of the theor y of "leadership and the self" is Higgins's (1987) theory of possible selves. Recently Kark and Van Dijk (2007) have linked the theory of transformational and transactional lead- ership with the theor y of self-regulator y focus (SRF). In this chapter we further draw on Higgins's (1997) theory of possible selves and regulatory focus, in an attempt to better grasp the quality of LMX relationships that form between leaders and their followers, as well as to explore possible outcomes of these relationships.

regulatory-focus theory Higgins (1997, 1998) developed the regulatory-focus theory, which describes important differences in the processes through which people approach pleasure and avoid pain. Self-regulation refers to the process by which people seek to align themselves (i.e., their behaviors and self-con- ceptions) with appropriate goals or standards (Brockner & Higgins, 2001). Specifically, Higgins (1997) proposed that people have two basic self-regu- lation systems. One system regulates the achievement of rewards and focus- es individuals on promotion goals, while the other system regulates the avoid- ance of punishments and focuses individuals on prevention goals. Promotion goals represent the "ideal self" and comprise hopes, wishes, and aspirations, whereas prevention goals represent the "ought self" and include duties, obligations, and responsibilities. Each regulatory focus has different implications for perception, decision making, and emotions, as well as for the individual's behavior and perfor- mance (Higgins, 1997, 1998). Individuals who operate primarily within the promotion focus are more concerned with accomplishments and aspira- tions, are likely to be sensitive to the presence or absence of rewards, use ap- proach as a goalattainment strategy, are more creative in problem-solving processes, show more willingness to take risks, and experience emotions ranging from elation and happiness to dejection (e.g., Brockner & Higgins, 2001; Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Friedman & Forster, 2001). In contrast, in- dividuals who operate primarily within the prevention focus are more con- cerned with duties and obligations, are likely to be sensitive to the presence or absence of punishments, use avoidance as a goal-attainment strategy, and experience emotions ranging from agitation or anxiety to quiescence

184

r. KarK and D. Van-DijK

or calm. The regulatory focus is determined both by situational and chron- ic factors (Higgins, 1997, 1998). Regulatory-focus theory has been used to study goal attainment (e.g., Forster, Higgins, & Idson, 1998; Shah, Higgins, & Friedman, 1998), deci- sion making (e.g., Crowe & Higgins, 1997), creativity (Friedman & Forster, 2001), information processing and persuasion (Aaker & Lee, 2001), and feedback and motivation (Forster, Grant, Idson, & Higgins, 2001; Van-Dijk & Kluger, 2004). However, it has not been applied to the study of leadership. The regulatory focus theory is particularly appropriate to the study of leadership for two reasons. First, it is one of the most comprehensive motivation theories and its constructs appear to be comprised of primary elements of human motivation. Second, SRF theory suggests that there are different pathways to achieve different desired end-states (Higgins, 1997); therefore, it could be used to analyze the different possible outcomes of leadership influence. The use of regulatory foci and the exploration of their role in eliciting different leadership outcomes also prevent researchers from tak- ing a one-sided view by valuing leadership that is focused on change and a promotion focus over leadership that is focused on maintaining stability and a prevention focus. Instead, it captures unique positive outcomes as well as the possible limitations of each mode of leadership (e.g., a promo- tion focus can lead to a lack of attention to detail whereas a prevention focus can lead to greater accuracy). We argue here that the regulatory focus plays two important roles with regards to LMX. First, the chronic component of the regulatory foci of both the leader and the follower determine the level of fit between them, and contribute to the quality of the LMX relationship that will be formed. Second, different SRF orientations of leader-follower dyads will affect their work outcomes.

leader-Member exchange (lMX) Within the broad area of organizational leadership, leader-member exchange theory has evolved into one of the most interesting and useful approaches for studying linkages between leadership processes and outcomes. First proposed by Graen and colleagues (e.g., Dansereau et al., 1973; Graen, 1976; Graen et al., 1982), LMX differs from other leadership theories by its focus on the dyadic relationship between a leader and a follower. At the core of LMX theory is the notion that leaders treat their subordinates differently depending on the quality of social exchange between them and their follow- ers (Graen & UhlBien, 1995; Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997). Low-quality LMX relationships are characterized by a unidirectional downward influ- ence, economic exchange behaviors, and formal role-defined relationships.

Birds of a Feather Flock together

185

Leaders and followers in low-quality LMX relationships rely almost exclusively on the formal employment contract and maintain a distance between themselves (e.g., Dunegan, Duchon, & Uhl-Bien, 1992; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). High-quality LMX relationships are characterized by mutual trust, respect, and obligation or commitment. Leaders in such relationships rely more heav- ily on followers, interact more frequently with them, and encourage them to undertake more responsible activities than they otherwise would. Followers in a highquality LMX relationship who have their leaders' support take on added duties, and perform beyond contractual expectations (e.g., Dunegan et al., 1992). Highquality LMX has been suggested to relate to the similarity or fit between the leader and follower.

leader-follower congruency (fit) Ehrhart and Klein (2001) claim that individuals can differ in their responses to identical leadership behaviors. A given leader may be satisfying and motivating to some employees, and dissatisfying and discouraging to other employees, even if the leader acts in an identical fashion toward both sets of employees. Studies of charismatic and transformational leadership (e.g., Yammarino, Dubinsky, Comer, & Jolson, 1997) have shown significant individual differences in subordinates' reactions to the same leader. These studies have shown that subordinates of a given leader may evaluate and describe the leader quite differently. Ehrhart and Klein also contend that individuals are likely to be drawn to and mostly satisfied with (a) leaders with whom they perceive they share similar attributes and values, and/or (b) leaders whom they perceive will meet their needs. A recent meta-analysis on fit in the workplace showed that person-supervisor fit had a positive relationship with job satisfaction, performance, organizational commitment, supervisor satisfaction, and LMX (KristofBrown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005). Tsui and OReilly (1989) reported that subordinate-supervisor demographic similarity was significantly associ- ated with supervisor ratings of affect toward subordinates and the extent to which subordinates achieved role and responsibility expectations. Further- more, in situations of high fit, followers obtain informative feedback and have a clear understanding of leader performance expectations (Wexley, Alexander, Greenwalt, & Couch, 1980). This suggests that follower-leader similarity may affect the quality of the leader-follower relationship, as well as promote process outcomes, including interpersonal comfort, compat- ibility, and work coordination. A wealth of theory and research regarding leadership, self-concept, and motivation further documents the substantial influence of similarity attrac- tion and satisfaction of needs on attitudes. According to Lord et al. (1999),

186

r. KarK and D. Van-DijK

leaders are most effective when there is a match between the values and identities they stress and the cognitive structures held by followers. Shamir and his associates' (1993) self-concept theory of charismatic leadership fur- ther suggests that the decision to follow a leader is based on the extent to which the leader is perceived as representing followers' values and identi- ties. This occurs when the values of the followers and the leaders are com- patible, a situation labeled "value congruence." In this chapter we suggest that congruency in selfregulatory orientation between a leader and a fol- lower may contribute to highquality LMX and to followers' motivation.

leader-folloWer regUlatorY coNgrUeNcY aNd lMX lMX and congruency Various studies have looked into the role of similarity and fit in LMX relationships. For example, Liden, Wayne, and Stilwell (1993) found that leader-follower perceived similarity, liking, and expectations predicted the quality of the LMX relationship. The findings from a field study con- ducted by Phillips and Bedeian (1994) showed that LMX quality was posi- tively related to supervisor-subordinate attitudinal similarity. Furthermore, with regards to demographic similarity, although Liden et al. found that supervisorsubordinate demographic similarity had no significant effects on quality of LMX, Green, Anderson, and Shivers (1996) described how LMX is likely to be of lower quality when there are gender differences be- tween subordinates and supervisors. Moreover, empirical studies have found associations between LMX and supervisor-subordinate agreement on job-related matters (Graen & Schiemann, 1978), positive affectivity similarity (Bauer & Green, 1996), and work values (Anderson & Green, 1993). With regards to personality traits, Deluga's (1998) empirical findings support the notion that subordinate- superior similarity in personality traits (i.e., conscientiousness) facilitates higher quality LMX and productivity. Thus, there is accumulating evidence that leaderfollower similarity with regards to demographic characteristics, values, attitudes, affectivity, and personality traits is likely to contribute to a high-quality LMX relationship.

self-regulatory focus and congruency (fit) Self-regulatory focus theory also stresses the importance of congruence or fit between the salient-regulation focus and the type of situational stimuli

Birds of a Feather Flock together

187

(Higgins, 2000; Van Dijk & Kluger, 2004), in that congruence contributes to higher motivation. According to this perspective self-regulation should be examined as it is located at exactly that point where individuals' dispositional/chronic regulatory focus intersects with contextual demands and requirements of organizational life. Individuals experience a regulatory fit when they strategically pursue a goal in a manner that sustains their regulatory orientation; this fit increases motivation and may contribute to enhanced performance (Higgins, 2000; Taylor-Bianco, Higgins, & Klem, 2003). In line with this assertion, the work of Camacho, Higgins and Luger (2003) suggests that when the context or situation elicits or favors a strat- egy aligned to the individual's regulatory orientation there will be regula- tory fit. In such situations the individual will feel that there is compatibility between his or her orientation and the surrounding context. This com- patibility should have positive motivational consequences (Taylor-Bianco & Schermerhorn, 2006). Conversely, when various aspects of the situation (e.g., the leader's orientation) and the individual's chronic regulatory ori- entation do not fit, the individual will experience this dissonance and this incompatibility should have negative motivational consequences (e.g., Tay- lor-Bianco & Schermerhorn, 2006; Van Dijk & Kluger, 2004). According to prior research, task engagement is better when the exter- nal situation fits, rather than does not fit, the individual's regulatory focus (Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Higgins, 2000). Congruency between the situ- ational and the chronic regulatory focus is likely to lead to higher levels of performance (Shah et al., 1998). This has also been demonstrated in a study of feedback (Van Dijk & Kluger, 2004) showing that negative feed- back (but not positive feedback) is congruent with the prevention focus, whereas positive feedback (but not negative feedback) is congruent with the promotion focus. Thus, people who received either positive feedback under promotion focus or negative feedback under prevention focus were shown to have higher motivation and performance than people who re- ceived feedback that was not congruent with their regulatory focus (Van Dijk & Kluger, 2004).

self-regulatory focus and congruency in leaderfollower relationships The effect of regulator y congruency was also found in the context of reactions to a role model (Lockwood, Jordan, & Kunda, 2002). Lockwood and her colleagues (2002) demonstrated that individuals are motivated by role models who encourage strategies that fit their chronic-regulatory focus. Specifically, promotion-focused individuals, who favor a strategy of pursuing desirable outcomes, are most inspired by positive role models

188

r. KarK and D. Van-DijK taBle 8.1 the relationship between regulatory focus and the Quality of lMX
Leader Follower Promotion Prevention High LMX Low LMX Low LMX Intermediate LMX Promotion Prevention

who highlight strategies for achieving success. In contrast, prevention-fo- cused individuals, who favor a strategy of avoiding undesirable outcomes, are most motivated by negative role models who highlight strategies for avoiding failure. Lockwood et al. suggested that there is a connection be- tween an individual's regulatory focus and the kind of role model that he or she would prefer. This notion can be further extended to the context of leadership. Thus overall, congruence or fit between followers' chronic regulatory focus and leaders' chronic regulatory focus should result in a higher quality LMX relationship, higher motivation among followers, and more effective outcomes. Below we propose a model that considers different types of lead- er-follower dyads based on the chronic self-regulatory focus of the leader and the follower. We first explore relationships of dyadic regulatory congru- ence followed by noncongruent leader-follower dyads. Table 8.1 summariz- es the propositions regarding the relationship between the leader-follower self-regulatory focus and the quality of LMX relationships.

leader-follower self-regulatory focus congruence As suggested above, earlier findings suggest that personality similarity is related to interpersonal attraction (e.g., Byrne, 1971), a higher level of trust and confidence (Turban & Jones, 1988), mutual behavior predictabil- ity (Meglino, Ravlin, & Adkins, 1991), and favorable performance ratings (Landy & Farr, 1980; Wayne & Liden, 1995). This implies that when there is similarity in terms of personality and self-perceptions, this is likely to lead to higher levels of liking and trust, a comfortable rapport, an accurate per- ception of leaders' performance expectations, and the ability to predict the ways the other will behave. All this has been found to facilitate the forma- tion of higher quality LMX (e.g., Deluga, 1998; Fairhurst, Rogers, & Starr, 1987; Liden et al., 1993; Wexley et al., 1980). We extend these supposi- tions and findings and propose that similarity in a different facet of the self, namely the self-regulatory focus, will be associated with LMX quality and furthermore, with performance.

Birds of a Feather Flock together

189

Leaders and followers who have a similar regulatory orientation are thus likely to experience higher levels of trust, understanding, predictability, and open communication, leading to higher levels of LMX. This yields two types of congruence between leaders and followers: a situation where both the follower and the leader are characterized by a promotion focus (promo- tion focus congruency), and a situation where both the leader and follower are characterized by a prevention focus (prevention focus congruency). In a promotion congruency dyad, both the leader and the follower focus on promotion goals, keeping in mind their hopes, wishes, and aspirations. Promotion-oriented leaders can shape the organizational context and tasks in a way that will fit a promotion-oriented follower. For example, Kark and VanDijk (2007) proposed that leaders who are characterized by a promo- tion focus are likely to display a transformational leadership style. Accord- ing to Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995), transformational leadership is related to high-quality LMX leadership behavior. This type of behavior, which emerges in idealistic visions of the future, satisfies the followers' needs for promotion (e.g., needs for achievement, risk, and growth). Furthermore, they provide good role models for followers with a promotion orientation (Lockwood et al., 2002). Thus, this is likely to relate to high-quality LMX and to contribute to high motivation in followers. By contrast, followers who are prevention focused will feel alienated or may become anxious by LMX leader's ideas that conflict with the status quo (upset the apple cart). In this case, a transactional or monitoring leader enacting a prevention focus (e.g., creating a predictable, struc- tured, and stable environment) may have a greater effect on followers who are characterized by a chronic prevention focus. Furthermore, the leader is likely to display behaviors that emphasize the goals that should be met and the mistakes that should be avoided. A prevention-oriented follower is likely to better accept the leader's performance expectations in such a situation. Furthermore, such a leader will provide a good role model to prevention-oriented followers, as suggested by Lockwood et al. (2002). Thus, leader-follower prevention congruency is also likely to re- late to somewhat high quality LMX and to higher levels of follower satis- faction and motivation. Nevertheless, although in both types of congruent dyads (promotion congruency and prevention congruency) there will be a higher quality of LMX and higher job satisfaction and motivation, we believe that in promo- tion congruency dyads there should be a higher quality of LMX than in prevention congruency dyads. Previous work has suggested that individuals with a promotion focus are likely to form different relationships than prevention-oriented individuals (Higgins, Roney, Crowe, & Hymes, 1994). Individuals who are character- ized by a promotion orientation use a goal-attainment strategy, whereas

190

r. KarK and D. Van-DijK

prevention orientation individuals use avoidance as a goal-attainment strat- egy. This is likely to affect their tendency to form relationships, the nature of relationships formed, and the quality of these relationships. In their review of attachment-related psychodynamics, Shaver and Mikulincer (2002) described three attachment styles: securely attached, avoidant, and anxious-ambivalent. With regards to regulatory-focus theo- ry it seems reasonable to relate the first two attachment styles to the pro- motion and prevention regulatory-focus orientations. Hazan and Shaver (1987) extended the concept of attachment styles, originally applied to par- ents, to romantic adult relationships. They found that while secure adults expressed support, trust and acceptance in their romantic relationships, avoidant adults expressed a fear of intimacy and jealousy. Further research showed that securely attached individuals form closer and higher quality relationships with others since they are typically confident and optimistic and display trust and openness toward others (Mikulincer & Nachshon, 1991; Shaver & Mikulincer, 2002, 2005). Conversely, avoidant individuals seek to increase distance from attachment figures. They shun intimacy as a means of protecting themselves from threat and pain. Such individuals prefer not to rely on others for support as they expect to be rejected and, therefore, the relationships they form with others are shallow and unaf- fectionate (Shaver & Mikulincer, 2002). If individuals with a chronic pro- motion regulatory orientation are likely to be more securely attached and individuals with a prevention regulatory orientation are likely to be more avoidant, promotion-congruent leader-follower dyads may be more likely to form a higher quality LMX relationship than prevention-congruent lead- er-follower dyads. Another research that indirectly supports the advantage of the promo- tion congruence over the prevention congruence in establishing quality LMX relationships is found in the work of Carver, Sutton, and Scheier (2000). Carver and his associates link regulatory focus to the broader do- main of personality. In particular, they map individual differences in the responsiveness of the approach system (promotion) onto the personality dimension of extraversion and map individual differences in the respon- siveness of the withdrawal system (prevention) onto the dimension of neu- roticism. Prior research shows that extroverts tend to form better relation- ships and be more satisfied with themselves than individuals who rate high on neuroticism. For example, results of an extensive meta-analysis relating the Big Five to satisfaction from relationships (i.e., marital satisfaction and social satisfaction) show that across all studies neuroticism had a significant negative association, whereas extroversion had a positive association with satisfaction from a dyadic marital relationship, as well as overall social satis- faction (Heller, Watson, & Ilies, 2004). This further suggests that leader-fol- lower promotion dyads are likely to form higher quality relationships than

Birds of a Feather Flock together

191

prevention-oriented dyads. Thus we expect that leader-follower dyads will have weaker LMX relationships than dyads with a promotion congruency.

leader-follower Noncongruency in self-regulatory focus Kluger and Ganzach (2004) proposed a theory that explains the influ- ence of regulatory focus on different aspects of the organization's outcomes (i.e., perfection vs. eminence). They proposed that LMX leadership is like- ly to activate a promotion focus among followers, because the "best" leader must be able to inspire change and protect the team from external con- formity pressures and therefore activates the followers' ideals, aspirations, and growth needs; namely, promotion focus. By contrast, they focus on the parallel process of LMX managership (see Graen, 2003) that could acti- vate the prevention focus among followers. Our theory expands the theory of Kluger and Ganzach, exploring not only congruent dyads (e.g., promo- tion leader with promotion follower), but also noncongruent dyads (e.g., promotion-oriented leader with prevention-oriented followers). Moreover, we propose that in all the possible dyad combinations a high-quality LMX relationship could develop. As was discussed for congruency, there are two cases of SRF noncongruency. In one case, the leader is characterized by a chronic SRF promotion focus but the follower is defined as chronic prevention. In the reverse al- ternative, the follower is defined as having a promotion focus whereas the leader is characterized by a prevention focus. In both these situations the quality of LMX is likely to be more limited. In such a dyad there is likely to be a stronger sense of misunderstanding, lower levels of trust and liking, and lower levels of understanding mutual expectations due to differences in SRF orientations. Furthermore, the leader is likely to behave in ways that are in line with his or her SRF. These behaviors may provide the follower with a situation of low fit, thus conflicting with or undermining his or her motivational characteristics and lessening the attraction and the quality of the LMX relationship. This leads to the following propositions: Proposition 1: Followers will be most motivated, satisfied, and effective when there is a congruency between leaders' and followers' chronic regulatory focus. Proposition 2: High-quality LMX relationships will be formed when there is a congruency between leaders' chronic regulatory focus and followers' chronic regulatory focus. (Leader-follower dyads whose regulatory foci are noncongru-

192

r. KarK and D. Van-DijK

ent will be characterized by lower quality LMX relationships in comparison to congruent dyads.) Proposition 3: Stronger LMX relationships between the leader and follower will be formed in a promotion-congruence dyad in comparison to a preventioncongruence dyad. The congruency between the leader's and the follower's regulatory focus will be apparent not only in high LMX but also with regards to the dyads' work outcomes.

self-regUlatorY focUs, lMX, aNd Work oUtcoMes Different levels of possible selves and different regulatory foci are impor- tant because they have perceptual, motivational, emotional, and behavior- al implications (e.g., Brockner & Higgins, 2001; Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Forster, Higgins, & Bianco, 2003; Higgins, 1997; 1998; Kluger & Ganzach, 2004; Liberman, Idson, Camacho, & Higgins, 1999). According to Brewer (1991), when the definition of the self changes, individuals' motivations also change significantly. LMX theory suggests that high-quality LMX result in a wide range of positive outcomes that differ from the outcomes of a low- quality LMX relationship (e.g., Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). In this section, we suggest that LMX relationships characterized by different motivational foci dyads lead to differential outcomes that are affected by differential self- perceptions on the part of the followers and leaders. Empirical studies by Higgins and his colleagues have revealed a variety of outcomes derived from the two regulatory foci (e.g., Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Higgins, 1997, 1998, 2000; Forster et al., 2003; Friedman & Forster, 2001; Liberman et al., 1999; Shah et al., 1998). This variety of outcomes includes behavior tendencies, emotions, cognitions, decision-making styles, and problemsolving strategies. In the following section we explore possible cognitive, emotional and task behavior outcomes of the different leader- follower dyads, including promotion-oriented dyads, prevention-oriented dyads, and SRF noncongruent dyads (see Table 8.2 for the framework we suggest). We first discuss the outcomes of leader-follower dyads that are congruent with regards to their regulatory focus, and then discuss possible outcomes of noncongruent leader-follower dyads.

Birds of a Feather Flock together taBle 8.2 the relationship between regulatory fit and dyad Work outcomes
Leader Promotion Follower Prevention

193

•

Promotion

Prevention

Attentiveness to positive outcomes • Openness to change • Creativity • Eagerness • Speed • Risk taking • Positive affectivity • Affective commitment • Low level of performance outcomes (both in terms of promotion oriented outcomes and prevention oriented outcomes). or • Ambidextrous dyad outcomesa

•

Low level of performance outcomes (both in terms of promotion oriented outcomes and prevention oriented outcomes). Ambidextrous dyad outcomesa

or

• •

Attentiveness to negative outcomes. • Preference for stability • Non-creative Repetitiveness • Vigilance • Accuracy • Risk adverse • Safety performance • Negative affectivity • Normative commitment • Continuance commitment

*

Outcomes that balance prevention and promotion and benefit from both perspectives.

outcomes in srf-congruent dyads Leader-Follower Dyad Cognitive Strategies Sensitivity to positive outcomes versus negative outcomes. One of the consequences of regulatory foci is greater sensitivity to positive or negative outcomes. Higgins and Tykocinski (1992) found that promotion-focused subjects remembered more positive events from a person's biography, while prevention-focused subjects remembered more negative events from the same biography. Van-Dijk and Kluger (2004) found that promotion-focused people are more attentive to positive feedback, while prevention-focused people are more attentive to negative feedback. Research has shown that transformational leaders are more optimistic, have strong positive percep- tions, and have a positive current and future outlook in comparison to other leaders (e.g., Ashkanasy & Tse, 2000). This suggests that a leader-follower promotionoriented dyad is likely to be more sensitive to positive outcome

194

r. KarK and D. Van-DijK

and positive feedback, whereas a prevention-oriented dyad is likely to be more attentive to negative outcomes and feedbacks. For example, a leader who has a promotion orientation is likely to behave in an LMX leader man- ner, by providing a vision of an optimistic or ideal future (Kark & Van Dijk, 2007). Followers who have a congruent promotion-oriented SRF are likely to be sensitive to these positive outcomes and positive feedbacks. Leaders who have a chronic prevention focus are likely to display monitoring or transactional leadership behavior, which is more attentive to exceptions and deviations. This type of behavior is likely to influence more followers with a prevention focus and thus elicit sensitivity to negative outcomes and responsiveness to negative feedback in them. Change preference versus stability preference. Liberman and her associates (1999) examined individual preferences for stability versus change in two kinds of tasks: "task substitution," which deals with choosing between resuming an interrupted activity and doing a substitute activity, and "en- dowment," which deals with choosing between a possessed object and an alternative new object. The researchers found in five experiments that in- dividuals in a prevention focus were more inclined than individuals in a promotion focus to resume an interrupted task rather than do a new and different substitute task. Moreover, unlike the promotion-focused individu- als, the prevention-focused individuals exhibited a reluctance to exchange currently possessed objects. These findings suggest that a promotion focus is associated with openness to change, while a prevention focus is associ- ated with preference for stability. By extension, promotion-congruent dyads should be more prone to promoting change and innovation in organiza- tions, and better coping in times of instability, turbulence, and crisis, dur- ing which change is needed. Conversely, prevention-congruent dyads are likely to show a preference for stability and possibly may function better in situations in which a routine must be maintained. The Emotional tone of Leader-Follower Dyads Positive and negative affectivity . Regulatory foci seem to be associated with emotionality (Brockner & Higgins, 2001; Higgins, 1997). Regulatory- focus theory suggests that when promotion goals are salient, success and failure lead to emotions of elation and dejection, respectively. These emo- tions belong to the Positive Affectivity (PA) dimension (e.g., Watson, Wi- ese, Vaida, & Tellegen, 1999). Similarly, when prevention goals are salient, success and failure lead to quiescence and agitation, respectively. These emotions belong to the Negative Affectivity (NA) dimension. Thus, the PA system is apparently the emotional monitoring system for the success or fail- ure of promotion goals, whereas the NA system is the emotional monitor of the success or failure of prevention goals (Carver et al., 2000). According to the leadership literature, leaders are seen to have a strong emotional

Birds of a Feather Flock together

195

influence on their followers, shaping the affective events that determine employees' attitudes and behaviors in the workplace (Bono & Ilies, 2006; Dasborough & Ashkanasy, 2003; Friedman, Riggio, & Casella, 1988). Thus, leader-follower dyads that are characterized by a promotion focus congru- ency may be more likely to experience emotions related to the PA system, while leader-follower dyads characterized by a prevention focus congru- ency are more likely to experience emotions related to the NA system. Organizational commitment. Commitment is a force that binds an individual to a course of action that is of relevance to a particular target (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001). Meyer and Allen (1991) suggested a three-compo- nent model of organizational commitment. The main differences between the three components are in the mindsets presumed to characterize the commitment. These mindsets reflect three distinguishable themes: affec- tive attachment to the organization (affective commitment), obligation to remain (normative commitment), and perceived cost of leaving (continu- ance commitment) (Meyer, Becker, & Vandenberghe, 2004). These three organizational commitment types have different implications for behavior (Meyer & Allen, 1991). For example, affective commitment has the stron- gest positive correlation with job performance. Recently researchers have claimed that these different types of commitment could be related to different regulatory foci (Meyer et al., 2004; Van- Dijk & Kluger, 2004). Specifically, it was suggested that a promotion focus is related to affective commitment, whereas a prevention focus is likely to be related to normative and continuance commitment. Promotion-focused individuals are intrinsically motivated and are mostly guided by their inner ideals and not by external forces. Thus, it is assumed that they will be com- mitted 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 fulfill 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). Previous studies have shown that high-quality LMX relationships are positively related to followers' commitment to the organizations (e.g., Lee, 2005). Thus, in our current framework promotion congruency dyads should experience higher levels of affective commitment, whereas preven- tioncongruency dyad should experience higher levels of continuance com- mitment.

leader-follower dyad task Behavior Risk-taking tendency versus risk-avoidance tendency. Crowe and Higgins (1997) showed that when individuals engaged in a signal detection task that

196

r. KarK and D. Van-DijK

required them to decide whether they did or did not detect a signal, promotion-focus individuals had a "risky" response bias (said "yes" even when they were not sure), and prevention-focus individuals had a "conservative" response (said "no" when they were not sure). Later, these findings were ex- panded by Friedman and Forster (2001), who showed that promotion cues, relative to prevention cues, produce a risky response bias. This suggests that leaderfollower dyads that have a promotion focus are more likely to take risks, experiment, and try new directions in their work, even at the expense of possibly making a mistake. Prevention-congruent dyads are more prone to "play on the safe side" and "work by the book," adhering to the firm's instructions and organizational regulations without taking risks. Creativity versus noncreativity and repetitiveness. Crowe and Higgins (1997) indicate that a promotion focus is associated with enhanced cre- ativity relative to a prevention focus. In an initial experiment, they ma- nipulated the situational-regulatory focus and subsequently administered a sorting task that gauged the ability to generate alternatives. As predicted, promotion-focused participants generated more subgroups than those with a prevention focus. Those with a prevention focus were more repetitive and persevering in their selection of sorting criteria. Higgins (1997) interpreted this as indicating greater "abstract thinking" or "creativity" under a promo- tion focus. Recently, Friedman and Forster (2001) showed that promotion cues bolstered both creative insight and creative generation relative to pre- vention cues. This suggests that promotion-oriented leaders are likely to provide a role model for creative thinking and to encourage followers to think creatively and generate new ideas. When the followers also have a promotion orientation this is likely to lead to enhanced creativity. In con- trast, leaders who have a prevention orientation and prefer stability will be- have in a monitoring manner (Kark & Van Dijk, 2007) and in situations in which the followers are also characterized by a prevention focus, the dyad will fit well into repetitive and routine contexts of work. Speed versus accuracy and safety in task performance. Forster et al. (2003) showed that a promotion focus leads to faster performance and less accuracy in a simple drawing task, in comparison to prevention focus. In another experiment, they showed that in a proofreading task induced-promo- tion focus led to faster proofreading in comparison to a prevention focus, whereas an induced-prevention focus led to higher accuracy in detecting more difficult errors than did a promotion focus. These findings suggest that under a prevention focus people are more vigilant, cautious, and are attentive to details, while under a promotion focus people are more eager, enthusiastic, fast, and pay less attention to details. Furthermore, related to their tendency to be more vigilant, cautious, and attentive to details, prevention-focused individuals were found in a field study to show more safety performance at work (Wallace & Chen, 2006).

Birds of a Feather Flock together

197

This suggests that promotion-congruent dyads are likely to show more eagerness and enthusiasm toward their work and faster task performance with less attention to detail. A prevention-congruent dyad is likely to be more vigilant and attentive to details, leading to higher task accuracy, safe- ty performance, and possibly the attainment of higher levels of quality in terms of their service or product manufacturing. On the basis of these considerations we suggest the following: Proposition 4: Promotion-congruence dyads will show sensitivity to positive outcomes, preference for change, risk-taking behavior, creativity, speed in task performance, positive affectivity, and affective commitment. Proposition 5: Prevention congruence dyads will show sensitivity to negative outcomes, preference for stability and vigilance, risk-avoidance behavior, noncreativity and repetitiveness, accuracy, attention to details and safety performance in task behavior, negative affectivity, normative and continuance commitment.

outcomes in srf Noncongruent dyads Above we discussed situations in which the leader and follower were congruent in terms of their self-regulatory focus orientation. However, there are many instances where dyads are not congruent. In these situations there will be a misfit between the follower's and the leader's orientation. This is likely to result in situations in which the leader will behave in ways that may not provide the ideal setting and context for the follower. In such dyads it is possible that each individual will pull in a different direction. For example, a promotion-oriented leader may promote strategies of approach, change, innovation, and work at a fast pace, whereas the follower will pull toward avoidance strategies, stability, and focus on details and accuracy. Such situa- tions may lead to misunderstandings between the leader and follower, and at times conflict and inconsistency. This is likely to impair the ability of the dyad to perform well and to reach desirable outcomes. However, in some situations, a noncongruent dyad may have advantages. A noncongruent dyad might have an advantage in a situation in which there is a high quality LMX relationship. Although we proposed above that a congruent SRF is likely to lead to high-quality LMX, in some situations of noncongruency in terms of SRF, a high-quality relationship may form based on other personality or demographic dimensions, or based on mu- tual experiences and history. For example, there may be gender similarity, age similarity, similarity in ethnicity, prior acquaintance, and other circum- stances or dimensions of similarity that may enhance the formation of a

198

r. KarK and D. Van-DijK

high-quality LMX relationship. In such situations, there may be an advan- tage to a dyad that is composed of different SRF orientations. Situations of change and learning have been characterized by the need for both explora- tion and exploitation. Successful organizational change is most likely to be sustainable when change goals are pursued by fully valuing and enabling both eagerness and vigilance as goal pursuit strategies by the organization's members (TaylorBianco & Schermerhorn, 2006). The learning processes of exploration and exploitation have increasingly become central to theories of technological innovation, organizational adaptation, organizational learning, and organizational survival (Gupta, Smith, & Shalley, 2006). Exploration emphasizes variation, experimentation, and radical learning, whereas exploitation emphasizes replication, refinement, and incremental learning. Long-term survival and success require the ability to be ambidextrous; that is, to explore new capabilities while exploiting existing ones (Tushman & O'Reilly, 1996). Because of its competing goals of innovation and efficiency, exploration and exploitation have often been described as paradoxical, and achieving ambidexterity is not easy. A cultural context that supports ambidexterity needs to protect open communication, create a feeling of safety and trust, and at the same time challenge employees (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; Lewis, 2000). Thus, a situation in which there is a lack of congruency between the leader and the follower in conjunction with a high-quality LMX connection may give rise to the formation of an ambidextrous leader-follower dyad. This type of ambidextrous dyad may benefit from its interpersonal regula- tory differences in orientations. This may lead to the ability to consider dif- ferent aspects of an issue, a more thoughtful decision process, and a more balanced process of pursuing change, as well as the possibility to reach a tradeoff between speed and quality. This can promote adaptive behavior at the dyad level. These advantages are supported by the theoretical work of Taylor-Bianco and Schermerhorn (2006), which suggests that strategic lead- ership in organizational change should allow for coexistent states of both continuity and change by constructing leadership teams that include a mix of individuals with promotion and prevention foci of self-regulation. Furthermore, according to Kristof-Brown et al. (2005), fit can be further broken down into complementary and supplementary fit. Supplementary fit relates to similarity and congruency (as discussed above), whereas complementary fit refers to a situation in which the basis for a good fit is the mutually offsetting pattern of relevant characteristics between the person and aspects of the environment (e.g., the leader). According to this definition of fit, complementary fit occurs when individuals' characteristics fill a gap in the current environment. An ambidextrous dyad can be characterized by a complementary fit. Our proposition, which highlights the possible benefits

Birds of a Feather Flock together

199

of a complementary regulatory focus fit in situations of high-quality LMX, is further supported by findings from a recent empirical study (Lake et al., under review). The findings of this study demonstrate that regulatory complementary fit may be beneficial in close relationships. According to this study, married partners with complementary regulatory focus orientations displayed increased relationship well-being; this provides further evidence that complementarity in relationship partners' regulatory focus increases relationship strength. These effects are thought to arise from the potential strategic compatibility between partners with complementary regulatory focus orientations who share a common goal. When partners with such complementary orientations can separately adopt their preferred roles within a relationship, they should each experience greater regulatory fit and thus value the relationship more. Thus we propose that: Proposition 6: Noncongruent regulatory-focus dyads will show lower levels of outcomes related to a promotion focus (e.g., sensitivity to positive outcomes, preference for change, risk-taking behavior, creativity, speed in task performance, positive affectivity, and affective commitment) in comparison to the outcomes of promotion-congruent dyads. Proposition 7: Noncongruent regulatory-focus dyads will show lower levels of outcomes related to a prevention focus ( (e.g., sensitivity to negative outcomes, preference of stability and vigilance, risk-avoidance behavior, noncreativity and repetitiveness, accuracy, attention to details and safety performance in task behavior, negative affectivity, normative and continuance commitment) in comparison to outcomes of prevention-congruent dyads. Proposition 8: In cases in which there is a high-quality LMX relationship and leader-follower dyads whose regulatory foci are noncongruent, ambidextrous dyads will be formed, which will result in a combination of both promotion and prevention outcomes, leading to the ability to draw on the diverse advantages of both orientations (e.g., the ability to explore and exploit).

coNclUsioNs aNd iMPlicatioNs for research The conceptualization of self-regulatory focus and leader-member ex- change presented here and summarized in Tables 8.1 and 8.2, portrays leadership and follower-leader relationships as tightly linked to the indi- viduals' (both leader's and follower's) internal motivational systems related to their chronic selfregulatory focus. Focusing on the relationship between the leader and follower, the theoretical framework we put forward first sug-

200

r. KarK and D. Van-DijK

gests that leaders and followers with a congruent chronic regulatory focus (i.e., promotion congruency or prevention congruency) are likely to form a higher quality LMX relationship in comparison to leader-follower dyads with a noncongruent regulatory focus. Furthermore, due to differences be- tween individuals with a prevention versus a promotion focus we suggest that promotion-congruent dyads will form stronger exchange relationships than prevention-congruent individuals. Moreover, the different forms of leader-follower dyads suggested above and the quality of LMX relationships they form are important because they can lead to different outcomes. A promotion-congruent dyad is likely to af- fect followers and leaders in a manner which promotes creativity, eagerness, attentiveness to positive outcomes, risk taking, willingness to make change, positive affectivity, and affective commitment. A prevention-congruent dyad is likely to promote the leader's and follower's preference for stabil- ity, tendency for accuracy, riskaversion behavior, attentiveness to negative outcomes, negative affectivity, normative or continuance commitment, and a culture that values quality and efficiency. Furthermore, regulatory con- gruency is likely to contribute to the enhancement of followers' motivation at work. In situations in which there is noncongruency between the leader's and the follower's regulatory focus we propose that the followers will show lower levels of motivation, which in some cases may even accentuate the tendency to leave work and feel less satisfied. Furthermore, in terms of specific out- comes we suggest two different possibilities. The more common one is a situation in which the differences in the leader's and follower's orientations will lead to inconsistency in the outcomes, limiting the level of expected outcomes related to both the promotion orientation (e.g., creativity and speed) and the prevention orientation (e.g., vigilance and accuracy). The second option is a situation in which the leader-follower dyad, overlooking their differences in regulatory focus orientation, form a high-quality rela- tionship (LMX) based on other types of characteristics. In such a situation the noncongruency is likely to become an advantage leading to an ambi- dextrous dyad, which can benefit from the advantages that exist in har- nessing their differences of perceptions and tendencies to create a more balanced dyad. The theoretical framework suggested in this chapter can shed light on the processes in which leaders' and followers' chronic regulatory focus contrib- ute to the formation of leadership-follower relationships, and can further affect diverse aspects of the dyads' outcomes in terms of their perceptions and behaviors, resulting in greater follower motivation and organizational effectiveness. Up to now most leadership theories of the self have focused mainly on the followers' self-identity, overlooking the leaders' self-identity (e.g., Lord & Brown, 1999, 2004; Kark & Shamir, 2002; Shamir et al., 1993).

Birds of a Feather Flock together

201

Recent work has made progress and focused on both the leader and the follower's SRF (Kark & Van Dijk, 2007; Kluger & Ganzach, 2004). However, the effect of SRF on the dyadic relationship and the "space between" the leader and follower have not been previously explored. One main contribu- tion of this chapter is its attempt to explore aspects of the leader-follower dyad and how it is affected by the leaders' and followers' self-construct (self- regulatory focus). This enables us to gain a broader understanding of the leadership process and its workings, by tracing the inner self and motiva- tions, their effect on the formation of leader-follower interaction and rela- tionships, and their ability to accomplish work tasks together. The fit between leader's and followers' regulatory foci can affect the relationship and motivation not only at the dyad level, but also at the work-team and organizational level. Promotion-focused leaders will tend to attract pro- motionfocused followers to their teams, and as a consequence high-quality LMX leader-follower dyads are likely to form. Similarly, prevention-focused leaders are likely to attract prevention-focused followers and to also form high-quality LMX dyads. However, for the sake of the team or the organiza- tion as a whole, it may be beneficial to have teams and organizations that are composed of followers with mixed regulatory orientations (Taylor-Bianco &Schermerhorn, 2006). In such cases, the same work team will be composed of both congruent and noncongruent dyads, and if the team leader is able to manage well the diversity in the team and build high-quality relation- ships with a majority of the followers, a well-functioning ambidextrous team (or organization) may develop. In this chapter we focus on the chronic regulatory focus, and on the role it plays in shaping the leader-follower dyadic relationship (LMX) and pos- sible outcomes. However, the regulatory focus is determined by both situ- ational and chronic factors (Higgins, 1997, 1998). According to regulatory focus theory, the behavior of individuals is likely to be affected by an inter- action between the chronic and the situational regulatory foci (Shah et al., 1998). This suggests that the self is dynamic in nature; that is, the content of the self-concept is dependent partially on the situation, the context, and ex- ternal cues provided by the leader. According to Kark and Van Dijk (2007), leaders can affect followers by highlighting different aspects of followers' self-concept and their self-regulatory foci (i.e., prevention or promotion), and possibly change their focus from one level of their regulatory focus to the other. This is likely to influence whether followers view themselves pri- marily in terms of their ideals, hopes, wishes, and aspirations, or in terms of their duties, obligations, and responsibilities. Kark and Van Dijk further suggest that different leadership behaviors can partially account for prim- ing these distinct aspects of followers' regulatory focus. This implies that leaders do not only relate to followers and affect them, based solely on the level of the congruency or noncongruency of chronic

202

r. KarK and D. Van-DijK

regulatory focus in the dyad, but rather, they can possibly shape and af- fect followers' situational regulatory focus orientation. Thus, in situations of chronic noncongruency between the leaders' and followers' regulatory orientation, leaders may still be able to behave in ways that may change the followers' situational regulatory focus and lead to a better fit in the dyadic relationship (e.g., to give an employee a creative task or to ask an employee to look for errors in a project could change the employee's chronic regu- latory focus to a promotion focus or a prevention one). Furthermore, by giving prominence to a different situational regulatory orientation a lead- er may affect the performance and outcomes of the dyad. Future studies should explore the effects of both the situational and chronic regulatory focus of the leader and the followers, and how they interact to influence the relationship of the leaderfollower dyad, the quality of LMX, and their outcomes. The ways in which the "congruency effect" suggested in the theo- retical framework we have put forward here is likely to interact with the "priming effects," should be the focus of future studies. Apart from considering the effects of the stable and more situational aspects of leaders' and followers' self-regulatory foci, this chapter addressed the level of the leader-follower dyad. Since a leader usually has a group of followers and the dyad is embedded in a team, and the leader forms mul- tiple dyadic relationships, future studies should examine how the variety of regulatory congruent and noncongruent dyadic relationships the leader forms with different individuals in his or her work team is likely to affect the relationship and performance at the individual, dyadic, and group levels. Future research should address these issues, and study the dynamics of the leader and follower relationship as it is affected by the self-regulatory focus. Several questions may be raised in this regard: Do managers select employees who are similar to them in terms of their self-regulatory focus? How do the organizational context and culture and the regulatory orienta- tion it represents (e.g., is it a culture that promotes innovation and change vs. a context that promotes stability and vigilance) influence the behavior, performance, and quality of the leader-follower dyad relationship? Can the same leader form highquality LMX relationships with followers who have a prevention focus and others who have a promotion focus? What character- izes leaders who have the ability to form certain quality relationships with followers who have both congruent and noncongruent regulatory orienta- tions? In this chapter we presented a series of propositions that may con- tribute to guiding further research on leadership processes. In addition, we have raised some issues that merit attention in future studies. We believe that because this conceptual framework rests on a relatively strong theo- retical rationale and is supported by empirical evidence from the field of regulatory focus theory and LMX theory, it deserves a place on the agenda of future research on leadership.

Birds of a Feather Flock together

203

MaiN PoiNts of this chaPter

•

•

• • • •

• •

•

The conceptualization of self regulatory focus and leader-member exchange presented here portrays leadership and follower-leader relationships as tightly linked to the individuals' (both leader's and follower's) internal motivational systems related to their chronic selfregulatory focus. The theoretical framework we put forward suggests that leaders and followers with a congruent chronic regulatory focus (i.e., promotion congruency or prevention congruency) are likely to form a higher quality LMX relationship in comparison to leader-follower dyads with a noncongruent regulatory focus. Due to differences between individuals with prevention versus a promotion focus we suggest that promotion-congruent dyads will form stronger exchange relationships than prevention-congruent individuals. The different forms of leader-follower dyads suggested above and the quality of LMX relationships they form are important because they can lead to different outcomes. A promotion-congruent dyad is likely to affect followers and leaders in a manner that promotes creativity, eagerness, attentiveness to positive outcomes, risk taking, willingness to make change, positive affectivity, and affective commitment. A prevention-congruent dyad is likely to promote the leader's and follower's preference for stability, tendency for accuracy, risk-aversion behavior, attentiveness to negative outcomes, negative affectivi- ty, normative or continuance commitment, and a culture that values quality and efficiency. Furthermore, regulatory congruency is likely to contribute to the enhancement of followers' motivation at work. In situations in which there is noncongruency between the leader's and the follower's regulatory focus we propose that the followers will show lower levels of motivation, which in some cases may even accentuate the tendency to leave work and feel less satisfied. Furthermore, in terms of specific outcomes we suggest two different possibilities. The more common one is a situation in which the differences in the leader's and follower's orientation will lead to inconsistency in the outcomes, limiting the level of expected outcomes related to both the promotion orientation (e.g., creativity and speed) and the prevention orientation (e.g., vigilance and accuracy). The second option is a situation in which the leader-follower dyad, overlooking their differences in regulatory focus orientation, form a high-quality relationship (LMX) based on other types of characteristics. In such a situation the noncongruency is likely to become an

204

r. KarK and D. Van-DijK

advantage leading to an ambidextrous dyad, which can benefit from the advantages that exist in harnessing their differences of perceptions and tendencies to create a more balanced dyad.

refereNces
Aaker, J. L., & Lee, A. Y. (2001). "I" seek pleasures and "we" avoid pains: The role of self-regulatory goals in information processing and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 33-49. Anderson, S. E., & Green S. G. (1993, April). Manager-subordinate compatibility and leadership exchange. Paper represented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology conference, San Francisco. Ashkanasy, N. M., & Tse, B. (2000). Transformational leadership as management of emotion: A conceptual review. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. E. J. Härtel, & W. J. Zerbe, Emotions in working life: Theory, research and practice (p. 221-235). Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1996). Development of leader-member exchange: A longitudinal test. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1538-1567. Bono, J. E., & Ilies, R. 2006. Charisma, positive emotions, and mood contagion. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 317-334. Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475-482. Brockner, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2001). Regulatory focus theory: Implications for the study of emotions at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(1), 35-66. Byrne, D. (1997). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press. Camacho, C. J., Higgins, E. T., & Luger, L. (2003). Moral value transfer from regulatory fit: what feels right is right and what feels wrong is wrong. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(3), 498-510. Carver, C. S., Sutton, S. K., & Scheier, M. F. (2000). Action, emotion, and personality: Emerging conceptual integration. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 741-751. Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Hu- man Decision Processes, 60, 117-132. Dansereau, F., Cashman, J., & Graen, G. B. (1973). Instrumentality theory and equity theory as complementary approaches in predicting the relationship of leadership and turnover among managers. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 10, 184-200. Dasborough, M. T., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2003). A qualitative study of cognitive asymmetry in employee affective reactions to leadership behaviors. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Conference, Seattle. Deluga, R. J. (1998). Leader-member exchange quality and effectiveness ratings: The role of subordinate-supervisor conscientiousness similarity. Group and Organization Management, 23(2), 189-216.

Birds of a Feather Flock together

205

Dunegan, K. J. Duchon, D., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1992). Examining the link between leader-member exchange and subordinate performance: The role of task analyzability and variety as moderators. Journal of Management, 18, 59-76. Ehrhart, M. G., & Klein, K. J. (2001). Predicting followers' preferences for charismatic leadership: the influence of follower values and personality. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 153-179. Fairhurst, G. T., Rogers, L. E., & Starr, R. A. (1987). Manager-subordinate control patterns and judgements about the relationship. Communication Yearbook, 10, 395415. Forster, J., Grant, H., Idson, L. C., & Higgins, E. T. (2001). Success/failure feedback, expectancies, and approach/avoidance motivation: How regulatory fo- cus moderates classic relations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(3), 253260. Forster, J., Higgins, E. T., & Bianco, T. A. (2003). Speed/accuracy decisions in task performance: Built-in trade-off or separate strategic concerns? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90, 148-164. Forster, 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, 1115-1131. Friedman, H. S., Riggio, R. E., & Casella, D. F. (1988). Nonverbal skill, personal charisma, and initial attraction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 203-211. Friedman, R. S., & Forster, J. (2001). The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1001-1013. Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct ideas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827-844. Gibson, C., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 209-226. Graen, G. B. (1976). Role making processes within complex organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1201-1245). Chicago: Rand McNally. Graen, G. B. (2003). Interpersonal workplace theory at the crossroads: LMX and transformational theory as special cases of role making in work organizations. In G. B. Graen (Ed.), Dealing with diversity, LMX leadership: The series (Vol. 1, pp. 145-182), Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Graen, G. B. (2006). To share or not to share leadership: New LMX-MMX network leadership or charismatic leadership on creative projects. In G. B. Graen &J. A. Graen (Eds.), Sharing network leadership (pp. 25-36). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Graen, G. B., Novak, M. A. & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects of leader-member exchange and job design on productivity and satisfaction: testing a dual attachment model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 109-131. Graen G., & Schiemann, W. (1978). Leader-member agreement: A vertical dyad linkage approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 206-212.

206

r. KarK and D. Van-DijK

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quar- terly, 6, 219-247. Green, S. G., Anderson, S. E., & Shivers, S. L. (1996). Demographic and organizational influences on leader-member exchange and related work attitudes. Organizational behavior and Human Decision processes, 66, 203-214. Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 693-706. Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524. Heller, D., Watson, D., & Ilies, R. (2004). The role of person vs. situation in life satisfaction: A critical examination. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 574-600. Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94(3), 319-340. Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist , 52, 1280-1300. Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 1-46). New York: Academic Press. Higgins, E. T. (2000). Making a good decision: Value from fit. American Psychologist, 55(11), 1217-1230. Higgins, E. T., & Tykocinski, O. (1992). Self-discrepancies and biographical memory: Personality and cognition at the level of psychological situation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(5), 527-535. Higgins, E. T., Roney, C. J., Crowe, E., & Hymes, C. (1994). Ideal versus ought predilections for approach and avoidance distinct self-regulatory systems. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 66(2), 276-286. Higgins, E. T., & Tykocinski, O. (1992). Self-discrepancies and biographical memory: Personality and cognition at the level of psychological situation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(5), 527-535. Kark, R., & Shamir, B. (2002). The dual effect of transformational leadership: Priming relational and collective selves and further effects on followers. In B. J. Avolio & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead (Vol. 2, pp. 67-91). Amsterdam: JAI Press. Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: Dependence and empowerment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 243255. Kark, R., & Van Dijk, D. (2007). Motivation to lead motivation to follow: The role of the self-regulatory focus in leadership processes. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 500-528. Kluger, A., & Ganzach, Y. (2004). Two faces of excellence: Perfection versus eminence. In G. B. Graen (Ed.), New frontiers of leadership, LMX leadership: The series (Vol. 2, pp. 67-97). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman R. D., & Johnson E. C (2005). Consequences of individuals fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281-342.

Birds of a Feather Flock together

207

Lake, V. K. B., Lucas, G., Molden, D. C., Finkel, E. J., Coolsen, M. K., Kumashiro, M., et al. (under review). When opposites fit: Increased relationship strength from partner complementarity in regulatory focus. Landy, F. L., & Farr, J. L. (1980). Performance rating. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 72-107. Lee, J. (2005). Effects of leadership and leader-member exchange on commitment. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 26(8), 655-672 Lewis, M. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25, 760-777. Liberman, N., Idson, L. C., Camacho, C. J., & Higgins, T. E. (1999). Promotion and prevention choices between stability and change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1135-1145. Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader-member exchange theory: The past and potential for the future. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resource management (pp. 47?119). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Liden, R. C., Wayne S. J., & Stilwell D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early development of leader-member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 662-674. 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. Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. (2004). Leadership processes and follower identity. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Lord, R. G., Brown, D. J., & Feiberg, S. J. (1999). Understanding the dynamics of leadership: The role of follower self-concepts in the leader/follower relation- ship. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78(3), 167-203. Meglino, B. M., Ravlin. E. C., & Adkins, C. L. (1991). Value congruence and satisfaction with a leader: An examination of the role of interaction. Human Relations, 44, 481-495 Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resources Management Review, 1, 61-89. Meyer, J., Becker, T., & Vandenberghe, C. (2004). Employee commitment and motivation: a conceptual analysis and integrative model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 991-1007. Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general model. Human Resource Management Review, 11, 299-326. Mikulincer, M., & Nachshon, O. (1991). Attachment styles and patterns of self-disclosure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 61, 321-331. Phillips, A. S., & Bedeian, A. G. (1994). Leader-follower exchange quality: The role of personal and interpersonal attributes. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 9901001. 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, 285-293.

208

r. KarK and D. Van-DijK

Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self concept based theory. Organization Science, 4, 577-593. Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2002). Attachment-related psychodynamics. Attachment and Human Development, 4, 133-161. Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2005). Attachment theory and research: Core concepts, basic principles, conceptual bridges. In A. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 22-45). New York: Guilford Press. Taylor-Bianco, A., Higgins, E. T., & Klem, A. (2003). How 'fun/importance' fit impacts performance: relating implicit theories to instructions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1091-1103. Taylor-Bianco, A., & Schermerhorn, J., Jr. (2006). Self-regulation, strategic leadership and paradox in organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 19(4), 457-470. Tsui, A. S., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1989). Beyond simple demographic effects: The importance of relational demography in superior-subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 402-423. Turban, D. B., & Jones, A. P. (1988). Supervisor-subordinate similarity: Types, effects and mechanisms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 228-234. Tushman, M., & O'Reilly, C. (1996). The ambidextrous organization: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38, 8-34. 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 Knippenberg, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2003). A social identity model of leadership effectiveness in organizations. In R. M. Kramer & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 245-297. van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., De Cremer, D., & Hogg, M.A. (2004). Leadership, self, and identity: A review and research agenda. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 825-856. Wallace, J. C., & Chen, G. (2006). A multilevel integration of personality, climate, regulatory focus, and performance. Personnel Psychology, 59, 529-557. Watson, D., Wiese, D., Vaidya, J., & Tellegen, A. (1999). The two general activation systems of affect: Structural findings, evolutionary considerations, and psychobiological evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 820-838. Wayne, S. J., & Liden, R. C. (1995). Effects of impression management on performance ratings: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 232260. Wexley, K. N., Alexander, R.A., Greenwalt, J. P., & Couch, M. A. (1980). Attitudinal congruence and similarity as related to interpersonal evaluations in manag- ersubordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 230-330. Yammarino, F. J., Dubinsky, A. J., Comer, L. B., & Jolson, M. A. (1997). Women and transformational and contingent reward leadership: A multiple-levels-ofanalysis perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 205-222.

Birds of a Feather Flock together

209

ackNoWledgMeNts We thank George Graen for his helpful comments. This research was supported by The Israel Science Foundation (Grant No. 254/07).



doc_952633107.docx