Search results

The purpose of this paper is to present a dispositional model using self‐regulation as a foundation for the strategic leadership of organizational change.

This paper reviews the self‐regulation literature and regulatory‐focus theory in particular, and integrates this literature within the strategic leadership and organizational change literatures to present a dispositional model with propositions about the relationships between these literatures.

Strategic leadership of organizational change should allow for co‐existent states of both continuity and change. Leadership teams should include a mix of individuals with promotion and prevention foci of self‐regulation and should provide for a regulatory fit that cascades throughout the organization.

Leaders should increase their self‐awareness of promotion and prevention styles of self‐regulation and rely on a mix of individuals that increase the chances of valuing and enhancing both continuity and change in their organizations.

This paper integrates the self‐regulation literature and concepts into discussion and theoretical development in the area of leadership and organizational change.

The purpose of this paper is to examine two key dimensions of in‐store marketing, namely in‐store promotions and price markdowns. These seem to be the two most important aspects of in‐store marketing, though other dimensions such as retail personal service are also worthy of study.

A sample of 287 New Zealand clothing and shoe retailers was studied. Survey questions included the perceived importance of in‐store promotions and price markdowns. The aim was to explain these perceptions in terms of marketing strategies, threat of competition and environmental uncertainty.

The results indicate that a discount marketing strategy, environmental uncertainty and emphasis on price‐promotions are key to explaining retailers' perceptions and use of specific in‐store marketing activities. In addition, seven key marketing activities were found to distinguish high‐ and low‐performance retailers with respect to in‐store promotions.

The study has highlighted strategic aspects of in‐store marketing, by focusing on two key components of in‐store marketing, namely in‐store promotion and price markdowns. The findings should provide much needed advice to retailers on the use of sales promotion tools in different environmental settings.

This paper should prove valuable to academic researchers and retailing managers (particularly to those in smaller countries), owner‐operated retail outlets, and chain stores.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether sexual minority candidates are viewed as less likely to fit-in in their work environments than heterosexual candidates and, hence, to their being evaluated as less promotable.

Consistent with previous research, the authors used a hiring scenario where evaluators saw one of four different resumes, which varied based on candidate sexual orientation and gender, yet were equal on all factors, including candidate qualifications. The research included a pre-test and manipulation check to ensure the validity of the authors’ research design.

As the authors expected based on stigma theory, gay and lesbian candidates were more likely to be perceived as unable to fit-in than heterosexual candidates. Perceptions of a lack of fitting-in were negatively related to promotability ratings, as were beliefs about the controllability of sexual orientation. However, counter to the authors’ expectations, gay and lesbian candidates were rated more promotable than heterosexual candidates. This presents a more nuanced picture of sexual orientation discrimination than has been offered heretofore.

Previous research has suggested that gay men and lesbians may be trapped in “gay ghettos,” yet there is little if any research on evaluations of sexual minority candidates in employment decisions beyond hiring. The present study extends research on sexual orientation discrimination by investigating whether decision makers are biased against gay and lesbian candidates in promotion decisions, and the factors that are related to promotability ratings.

This study aims to examine the impact of consumers’ individual differences on their reactions to brand failure.

Three studies (one qualitative, one survey and one experiment) were conducted. Study 1 aimed to understand consumers’ thoughts at the time of brand failure. Studies 2 and 3 investigated the impact of regulatory focus and its interaction with consumers’ attachment style on their reactions to brand failure.

This research establishes that consumers demonstrate different types of behaviors at the time of brand failure. Specifically, those with a promotion focus display less negative (revenge and brand avoidance) and more positive (trust and loyalty) behavior than those with a prevention focus. Furthermore, this research shows an interaction between consumers’ attachment style and regulatory focus. The impact of regulatory focus holds only for secure consumers; for fearful consumers, regulatory focus does not change their behavior.

The study reveals the impact of regulatory focus and attachment styles on consumer behavior at the time of brand failure. Future research might examine the impact of these factors over time, rather than only at the time of the incident.

Marketers should be aware of the impact of attachment style and regulatory focus after a brand failure. This knowledge will enable them to customize their communication tools to trigger their desired condition. This research also emphasizes the role of customer service at the time of crisis.

This research is the first to investigate the impact of regulatory focus and attachment style on consumers’ reactions to brand failure.

The present research examines the interaction between explanation type and regulatory focus on informational justice (IJ) and satisfaction with service recovery.

The authors conducted two experiments with 538 respondents.

The findings imply that the effectiveness of the explanation type depends on the regulatory focus of the recipient and the severity of the failure. Specifically, with low severity failures, promotion-oriented respondents were sensitive to explanations about why failures happened. Conversely, their prevention-oriented counterparts were sensitive to explanations about how failures happened. With high severity failures, respondents were sensitive to how the failure happened irrespective of their regulatory focus orientation. Moreover, IJ is the psychological mechanism explaining such effects on satisfaction with service recovery.

The research contributes to the service recovery literature showing that explanations provided by the service providers should match the regulatory focus of the customers. The study provides new insights to the practicing managers to enhance the effectiveness of the explanations thus reducing recovery dissatisfaction.

Using firm-level data from small- to micro-sized agro-based enterprises located in developing Africa, the purpose of this paper is to employ a resource-based marketing model to explain financial and nonfinancial organizational performance outcomes. The moderating effect of firm size on the structural inter-linkages between customer retention orientation, eBrand promotion and the organizational performance outcomes is also explored.

Partial least squares path modeling approach was the analytical method for data analysis purposes.

The data support the assumption that marketing resources as well as the moderating influence of firm size play a strong role on the agro-based enterprise performance.

This study widens the context of inquiry on agro-based enterprise performance to include developing economies in Sub-Saharan Africa. The value of the paper rests in its intent to offer small- to micro-sized agro-based businesses in emerging markets more practical ways to enhance their performance.

The purpose of this study is to understand how regulatory focus influences informal learning behaviors. A growing body of research indicates that regulatory focus has significant consequences for goal pursuit in the workplace, yet it has not been readily studied or applied to the field of human resource management (Johnson et al., 2015). This is one of the few studies to examine the relationship between informal learning and regulatory focus theory that can be applied to the training and development field.

Using a qualitative research design, a semi-structured interview was used to increase the comparability of participant responses. Questions were asked in an open-ended manner, allowing for a structured approach for collecting information yet providing flexibility for the sake of gaining more in-depth responses. An interview guideline was used to standardize the questions and ensure similar kinds of information were obtained across participants. A typological analytic approach (Lincoln and Guba, 1985) was used to analyze the data.

In a sample of 16 working adults, (44% female and 56% male), participants who were identified as having either a promotion- or prevention-focus orientation were interviewed about types of informal learning strategies they used. The results revealed that performance success and failure have differential effects on learning behaviors for prevention and promotion-focus systems. Stress and errors motivate informal learning for the prevention-focus system, whereas positive affect motivates informal learning for the promotion-focus system. Prevention-focus participants articulated greater use of vicarious learning, reflective thinking and feedback-seeking as methods of informal learning. Promotion-focus participants articulated greater use of experimentation methods of informal learning.

This study provides an in-depth understanding of how regulatory focus influences informal learning. Few studies have considered how regulatory focus promotes distinct strategies and inclinations toward using informal learning. Performance success and failure have differential effects on informal learning behaviors for regulatory promotion and prevention systems. This has theoretical and practical implications in consideration of why employees engage in informal learning, and the tactics and strategies they use for learning.

Scholars of ambidexterity focus on the need for strategic leaders to explore and exploit opportunities synergistically. Yet it remains unclear how such dynamic capabilities develop. Addressing this question, this chapter investigates the role of social cognitive self-regulation in fostering ambidexterity as a dynamic capability among entrepreneurs. Results of a mixed method, multiple case study of founder managers suggest that complex patterns of self-regulation are associated with ambidextrous thinking and decision making among entrepreneurs, often in combination with strong values and a sense of emotional engagement. I propose a new model of these processes and discuss its implications.

The central question of this paper is, “What determines an entrepreneur's effort on different tasks?” The paper aims to address this question.

Propositions about the impact cognitive processes have on entrepreneurial effort across different tasks are developed. These propositions draw on self‐regulatory theory, in particular our understanding of regulatory focus and self‐efficacy.

It is argued that a promotion orientation motivates effort on explorative tasks, and a prevention orientation motivates effort on exploitative tasks. Further, it is proposed that high self‐efficacy motivates effort on action tasks, but high self‐efficacy reduces effort on judgment tasks.

One implication of these propositions for entrepreneurs is to understand self‐regulatory processes and to consciously decide how much effort to put into different tasks, rather than relying on (hidden) preferences. Another implication is for those involved in selecting and developing entrepreneurs. That implication is that entrepreneurs' self‐regulatory processes can inhibit effective effort. These processes can be managed to increase effectiveness.

By introducing task type into the discussion of self‐regulation and entrepreneurial effort, a more fine‐grained understanding of cognitive processes in actual entrepreneurial activities is developed.

Although being fired up about changes such as firm expansion, chief executive officers (CEOs) have a hard time with changes that involve divesting businesses or downsizing operations. This study aims to examine how a particular psychological process – regulatory focus – serves as a managerial exit barrier in the context of store closings in the US retail industry. This study also examines how a particular corporate governance mechanism, the board of directors, moderates the relationship between CEO regulatory focus and divestment activity.

This study content-analyzed letters to shareholders to measure the regulatory focus of retail CEOs and used negative binomial regression to test the effect of the CEO’s regulatory focus and board independence on store closure activity.

The two motivation orientations – promotion and prevention – focuses have distinct effects on store closure decisions. As predicted, promotion-focused CEOs, who value attainment and growth, resist “pulling the plug.” Conversely, prevention-focused CEOs, who are more sensitive to losses, are more inclined to close stores. Independent boards decrease the CEOs’ resistance to “pull the plug” only when necessary, which is the case when CEOs have less vigilant tendencies.

This study contributes to the strategy and marketing literature. It examines an individual-level antecedent of store closure decisions and responds to the call for research on the effect of regulatory focus on divestment decisions.

Leaders themselves can be a source of resistance to change. The findings suggest the importance of boards hiring CEOs psychologically aligned with the firms’ strategic priorities. Promotion-focused CEOs may be a better fit for companies engaged in growth and acquisition. By contrast, prevention-focused CEOs may be a better fit for firms involved in retrenchment and restructuring. Independent boards still have the power to influence CEO decisions in the case of a misfit, as the findings suggest.

This study examines divestment decisions during the “retail apocalypse” and provides empirical evidence for the existence of managerial exit barriers, first introduced by Michael Porter.