The joint effects of promotion and prevention focus on performance, exhaustion and sickness absence among managers and non-managers
| Pages | 1493-1507 |
| Date | 06 November 2017 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-12-2015-0309 |
| Published date | 06 November 2017 |
| Author | Paraskevas Petrou,Machteld Van den Heuvel,Wilmar Schaufeli |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour,Global HRM |
The joint effects of promotion and
prevention focus on performance,
exhaustion and sickness absence
among managers and
non-managers
Paraskevas Petrou
Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Machteld Van den Heuvel
University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, and
Wilmar Schaufeli
Department of Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Professional
Learning, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to examine the main and interaction effects of self-rated promotion
and prevention regulatory focus on self-rated work performance, emotional exhaustion and sickness absence
for managers and non-managers separately. The authors expected that promotion focus relates positively to
performance and negatively to sickness absence, while prevention focus relates positively to exhaustion and
sickness absence, both for managers and non-managers. Furthermore, the authors expected that promotion
focus relates positively to performance but also to exhaustion and sickness absence when prevention focus is
high, only for managers (i.e. a manager’s dual regulatory focus can be an effective but also exhausting
leadership strategy).
Design/methodology/approach –The authors tested the hypotheses via moderated regression analyses
among two independent groups, managers (n¼241) and non-managers (n¼415).
Findings –Promotion focus was po sitively related to ma nagers’and non-managers’performance and
negatively to non-man agers’sickness absen ce, while prevention fo cus did not have any main effe cts.
As expected, managers’promotion focus was positiv ely related to managers ’sickness absence when
managers’preventio n focus was high (i.e. d ual regulatory focus ). Furthermore, mana gers’promotion
focus negatively related to managers’performance when managers’pr evention was high, failing to suppo rt
the hypothesis.
Practical implications –Promotion focus should be enhanced by organizations among leaders and
employees. The authors also cautiously discuss the possibility of interventions comparing a promotion focus
with dual-focus training.
Originality/value –The authors contribute to the literature by examining the joint (rather than main)
effects of promotion and prevention focus on work behavior and the authors address these links among
managers and non-managers.
Keywords Quantitative, Absenteeism, Individual behaviour, Work performance, Leader behaviour
Paper type Research paper
In everyday life, people use different means to pursue their goals. Regulatory focus theory
(Higgins, 1997, 1998) suggests that while some people prefer to achieve success or grow
(i.e. promotion focus), others prefer to avoid failure (i.e. prevention focus). While it has been
sometimes assumed that promotion and prevention regulatory focus have their roots in
one’s early life (Higgins et al., 2001), regulatory focus is generally considered a malleable
state. Extensive experimental research finds that promotion and prevention focus are
psychological states that can be induced by situational cues (Baas et al., 2011).
Organizational literature agrees in that employees are not promotion or prevention focused
Personnel Review
Vol. 46 No. 8, 2017
pp. 1493-1507
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0048-3486
DOI 10.1108/PR-12-2015-0309
Received 4 December 2015
Revised 22 June 2016
19 October 2016
3 January 2017
Accepted 6 February 2017
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm
1493
Joint effects of
promotion and
prevention
To continue reading
Request your trial