Regulatory Mode and Preferred Leadership Styles: How Fit Increases Job Satisfaction

Abstract

Four studies conducted in diverse organizational contexts examined preferences and fit between two regulatory modes, referred to as “locomotion” and “assessment” (Higgins, Kruglanski, & Pierro, 2003; Kruglanski, et al., 2000), and leadership styles practiced by supervisors over their subordinates. The locomotion mode constitutes the aspect of self-regulation that is concerned with movement from state to state, and the assessment mode constitutes the aspect of self-regulation that is concerned with making comparisons. The present studies consistently show that individuals high in locomotion prefer a “forceful” leadership style, represented by “coercive”, “legitimate”, and “directive” kinds of strategic influence, whereas individuals high in assessment prefer an “advisory” leadership style, represented by “expert”, “referent”, and “participative” kinds of strategic influence. Consistent with regulatory fit theory (Higgins, 2000), the job satisfaction of subordinates was found to be higher when the style of strategic influence practiced by their supervisor fit their regulatory mode orientation (high locomotion/“forceful” style; high assessment/“advisory” style).

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Antonio Pierro, Dipartimento di Psicologia dei Processi di Sviluppo e Socializzazione, Università di Roma “La Sapienza”. Arie W. Kruglanski, Department of Psychology, University of Maryland at College Park, USA. E. Tory Higgins, Department of Psychology, Columbia University. This work was supported by NSF Grant SBR-9417422. Please address correspondence to Antonio Pierro, Dipartimento di Psicologia dei Processi di Sviluppo e Socializzazione, Via dei Marsi, 78, 00185 Roma, Italy ([email protected]).

Notes

∗p < .05. ∗∗p < .01. ∗∗∗p < .001.

¹As a preliminary step, we tested also the interactions between locomotion assessment and the different types of power. This preliminary analysis was performed also in all our subsequent studies presented here. Because the results did not show any significant interaction effects in any one of our studies, we excluded the interaction terms from the analyses.

∗p < .05. ∗∗p < .01. ∗∗∗p < .001.

∗p < .05.

∗∗p < .01.

∗∗∗p < .001.

∗p < .05.

∗∗p < .01.

∗∗∗p < .001.