Impact of Performance Lower Than Expectations on Work Behaviors: The Moderating Effect of Status Mutability and Mediating Role of Regulatory Focus

Figures & data

Figure 1 Proposed model.

Table 1 Provides the Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of the Measures and Variables Used in the Study

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
Gender: 0=female,1=male	0.74	0.44
Organizational tenure	5.00	2.95	0.02
Education	1.97	0.76	0.01	0.21**
Creative Personality	5.52	3.44	0.07	−0.04	−0.02
Organizational justice	6.52	3.42	0.05	−0.03	−0.03	−0.11*
Informal status	4.14	0.56	−0.03	0.05	−0.04	−0.09	0.07
SHM^a	5.24	0.56	−0.01	−0.07	−0.02	−0.07	−0.10	−0.09	(0.77)
PLE^b	4.51	1.62	−0.02	−0.09	−0.05	−0.08	0.19**	0.17**	0.12*	(0.89)
Promotion focus	5.12	1.18	0.05	−0.08	−0.03	0.04	0.20**	0.17**	0.29**	0.25**	(0.84)
Prevention focus	4.56	1.14	0.02	−0.087	−04	0.03	0.14**	0.15**	0.21**	−0.30**	0.17*	(0.82)
IWB^c	3.79	1.43	0.01	−0.12*	−0.06	−0.07	0.12*	0.11	0.09	−0.24**	0.35**	0.15*	(0.92)
CWB^d	5.03	0.98	−0.08	−0.04	−0.001	−0.02	0.16*	−0.06	−0.05	0.035**	0.30**	0.11*	0.60**	(0.88)

Notes: n = 340; Cronbach’s coefficient alphas are given on the diagonal in parentheses. ^aStatus Hierarchy Mutability, ^bCreative Performance lower than expectations, ^cInnovative work behaviour, ^dCounterproductive work behaviour *p< 0.05, **p <0.01, two-tailed tests.

Table 2 Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Model	X^2	df	TLI	CFI	RMSEA	SRMR
Six-factor model	1494.145	472	0.89	0.90	0.05	0.06
Five-factor model ^a	3234.549	477	0.70	0.73	0.07	0.09
Four-factor model ^b	3688.634	481	0.66	0.69	0.09	0.10
Three-factor model ^c	3831.726	484	0.64	0.67	0.11	0.12
Two-factor model ^d	3958.611	486	0.63	0.66	0.17	0.15
One-factor model ^e	5157.044	487	0.51	0.55	0.16	0.17

Notes: ^aCreative Performance lower than expectation, Promotion focus + Prevention focus, Innovative work behavior, Counterproductive work behavior, Status hierarchy mutability. ^bCreative Performance lower than expectation, Promotion focus + Prevention focus, Innovative work behavior + Counterproductive behavior, Status mutability. ^cCreative Performance lower than expectation + Status hierarchy mutability, Promotion focus + Prevention focus, Innovative work behavior + Counterproductive work behavior. ^dCreative Performance lower than expectation + Status hierarchy mutability + Promotion focus + Prevention focus, Innovative work behavior + Counterproductive work behavior. ^eCreative Performance lower than expectation + Status hierarchy mutability + Promotion focus + Prevention focus + Innovative work behavior + Counterproductive work behavior.

Abbreviations: TLI, tucker-Lewis’s index; CFI, confirmatory factor index; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; SRMR, standardized root mean residual.

Table 3 Multi-Level Models Identifying That Promotion Focus Mediates the Relationship Between Performance Lower Than Expectations and Innovative Work Behavior (IWB)

Variable	Promotion Focus	IWB
	M1	M2	M3	M4
Control Variables
Gender:0=female, 1=male	0.11(0.13)	−0.02(0.19)	−0.11(0.18)	−0.06(0.18)
Organizational Tenure	−0.01(0.02)	−0.03(0.03)	−0.04(0.03)	−0.03(0.03)
Education	0.03(0.08)	0.01(0.11)	−0.02(0.10)	−0.02(0.10)
Creative personality	0.02(0.02)	0.02(0.02)	0.02(0.02)	0.01(0.02)
Informal status	0.09(0.05)	−0.07(0.06)	−0.05(0.06)	−0.11*(.06)
Mediator
Creative Performance lower than expectation	0.32**(.04)	0.34**(.06)		0.12*(.06)
Predictor Variable
Promotion Focus			0.61**(.07)	0.51(0.08)
R^2	0.27	0.19	0.25	0.29
ΔR^2	0.15	0.11	0.20	0.11

Notes: n=340 at individual level, n= 65 at group level. Unstandardized coefficient is reported. Standard errors are in parentheses. *p <0.05, two-tailed, **p < 0.01, two-tailed.

Table 4 Multi-Level Models Identifying That Prevention Focus Mediates the Relationship Between Performance Lower Than Expectations and Counterproductive Work Behavior (CWB)

Variable	Prevention Focus	CWB
	M1	M2	M3	M4
Control Variables
Gender:0=female, 1=male	−0.10(0.12)	−0.02(0.15)	−0.11(0.14)	−0.08(0.10)
Organizational Tenure	−0.04(0.02)	−0.05(0.03)	−0.06(0.03)	−0.02(0.03)
Education	0.03(0.06)	0.02(0.10)	−0.01(0.13)	−0.02(0.10)
Informal status	0.10(0.05)	−0.06(0.06)	−0.04(0.06)	−0.12*(.05)
Predictor Variable
Performance lower than expectation	0.29**(.04)	0.37**(.06)		0.14*(.06)
Mediator Variable
Prevention Focus			0.49**(.04)	0.62(0.08)
R^2	0.23	0.17	0.35	0.30
ΔR^2	0.16	0.12	0.24	0.11

Notes: n=340 at individual level, n= 65 at group level. Unstandardized coefficient is reported. Standard errors are in parentheses. *p <0.05, two-tailed, **p < 0.01, two-tailed.

Table 5 The Multilevel Model Explaining the Effect of Status Hierarchy Mutability on Employees’ Innovative Work Behavior

Variable	Status Hierarchy Mutability	IWB
	M1	M2	M3
Control Variables
Gender:0=female, 1=male	−0.15(0.13)	−0.14(0.17)	−0.11(0.17)
Organizational Tenure	−0.01(0.02)	−0.04(0.03)	−0.04(0.03)
Education	0.17(0.08)	0.03(0.11)	−0.01(0.10)
Creative personality	0.04(0.02)	0.01(0.02)	0.02(0.02)
Informal Status	0.25**(.03)	−0.03(0.04)	−0.03(0.04)
Predictor Variable
Creative Performance lower than expectations (PLE)	0.03(0.04)	0.20*(.06)	0.14*(.06)
Promotion focus	0.55**(.06)	0.69**(.09)	0.68**(.08)
Moderator
Status hierarchy mutability		−0.29*(.08)	−0.25*(.08)
Interaction
PLE × Status hierarchy mutability			0.22**(.08)
R^2	0.35	0.33	0.36
ΔR^2	0.24	0.03	0.03

Notes: n=340 at individual level, n= 65 at group level. Unstandardized coefficient is reported. Standard errors are in parentheses. *p <0.05, two-tailed, **p < 0.01, two-tailed.

Figure 2 The moderating effect of employee status hierarchy mutability on the relationship of promotion focus and performance lower than expectations.