Regulatory focus and work-related outcomes: A review and meta-analysis.

Abstract

Regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997) has received growing attention in organizational psychology, necessitating a quantitative review that synthesizes its effects on important criteria. In addition, there is need for theoretical integration of regulatory focus theory with personality research. Theoretical integration is particularly relevant, since personality traits and dispositions are distal factors that are unlikely to have direct effects on work behaviors, yet they may have indirect effects via regulatory focus. The current meta-analysis introduces an integrative framework in which the effects of personality on work behaviors are best understood when considered in conjunction with more proximal motivational processes such as regulatory focus. Using a distal-proximal approach, we identify personality antecedents and work-related consequences of regulatory foci in a framework that considers both general and work-specific regulatory foci as proximal motivational processes. We present meta-analytic results for relations of regulatory focus with its antecedents (approach and avoid temperaments, conscientiousness, openness to experience, agreeableness, self-esteem, and self-efficacy) and its consequences (work behaviors and attitudes). In addition to estimates of bivariate relationships, we support a meta-analytic path model in which distal personality traits relate to work behaviors via the mediating effects of general and work-specific regulatory focus. Results from tests of incremental and relative validity indicated that regulatory foci predict unique variance in work behaviors after controlling for established personality, motivation, and attitudinal predictors. Consistent with regulatory focus theory and our integrative theoretical framework, regulatory focus has meaningful relations with work outcomes and is not redundant with other individual difference variables.

When fit matters more: The effect of regulatory fit on adaptation to change

“…Meta-analytical evidence reveals that promotion and prevention focus are two independent strategies that coexist and are positively intercorrelated (Lanaj et al, 2012). It has also been proposed that promotion and prevention focus could exclude each other, especially during specific instances that require action (Kluger & Ganzach, 2004), as it happens, for instance, in experimental settings.…”

“…Unlike promotion-focused individuals, preventionfocused individuals make more use of interdependent than independent criteria in their self-regulation (Pham & Avnet, 2004) and they are not particularly self-efficacious (Lanaj et al, 2012). Possibly because of being insecure, prevention-focused individuals have been found to copy behaviours of managers to a higher extent than promotion-focused individuals (Zhang, Higgins, & Chen, 2011).…”

“…Promotion-focused individuals are generally self-efficacious (Lanaj, Chang, & Johnson, 2012). In fact, they often overestimate their control even when the tasks they have to perform are objectively difficult (Langens, 2007).…”

“…Environmental changes intensify individual differences and habitual behavioural strategies (Caspi & Moffitt, 1993). Promotion-focused individuals are generally open to experience (Lanaj et al, 2012), they are flexible (Wu, McMullen, Neubert, & Yi, 2008), and they have a preference for change instead of stability (Liberman et al, 1999). When a new situation arises, they should, thus, be expected to embrace it without relying to others or seeking environmental guidance.…”

Searching for a nursing job in an increased complexity of the labour market: An integrative review of the literature

“…According to the self-regulation theory, interacting with the environment, new graduates receive feedbacks with regard to the behaviours adopted which they may self-regulate in accordance with the feedbacks received. However, different self-regulatory mechanisms of thought, emotions and behaviours have been reported among job seekers: [39] those new graduates with a focus on promotion are sensitive to success and use energy to achieve their purpose of finding a job; those with a focus on prevention are sensitive to defeat and therefore they mainly activate energy to protect themselves. Nurse educators have many opportunities to identify those students who are not proactive or with low self-efficacy; as well as those not learning when feedbacks are offered or those with a preventive focus: many strategies should be undertaken for these students especially in order to enhance these abilities.…”