Summary articles Leadership & Management – for exam December 2022
Course articles exam: !!
- It is important to know what the article/research was about;
- What did the researchers want to know and why;
- What did they expect (hypotheses) and why;
- How did they study this;
- Were the hypotheses supported and if not, why (possibly) not;
- Any discussion points or limitations that are clearly discussed in the article
No minor details such as sample size, but a good understanding of the story/research that is
described nonetheless
How to approach/read scientific articles:
1) Check title first, what’s it about? Variables?
2) Then abstract: Main summary, provides framework to understand and remember the rest
better
3) If the paper has a model or figures: good! Look at those before reading the article, try to
understand them, they usually represent/illustrate main story
4) Take your time! Scan first (extract main story), then read again (in more detail)
Week 2: Motivation
- Stam, D., van Knippenberg, D., Wisse, B., & Nederveen Pieterse, A. (2018). Motivation in words:
Promotion-and prevention-oriented leader communication in times of crisis. Journal of Management,
44, 2859-2887.
- Sheeran, P., Webb, T. L., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2005). The interplay between goal intentions and
implementation intentions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 87-98.
Week 3: Creativity & Innovation
- Volmer, J., Spurk, D., & Niessen, C. (2012). Leader–member exchange (LMX), job autonomy, and
creative work involvement. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 456-465.
- Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort‐reward fairness and innovative work
behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 287-302.
Week 4: Stress & Occupational Health
- De Hoogh, A. H., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2009). Neuroticism and locus of control as moderators of the
relationships of charismatic and autocratic leadership with burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94,
1058-1067.
- Kinnunen, U., Rantanen, J., de Bloom, J., Mauno, S., Feldt, T., & Korpela, K. (2016). The role of work–
nonwork boundary management in work stress recovery. International Journal of Stress Management,
23, 99-123.
Week 5: Decision Making & Work in the Digital Age
- Hammond, J. S., Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1998). The hidden traps in decision making. Harvard
business review, 76, 47-58.
- Handke, L., Klonek, F. E., Parker, S. K., & Kauffeld, S. (2020). Interactive effects of team virtuality and
work design on team functioning. Small Group Research, 51(1), 3-47.
Week 6: Proactive Behavior
- Den Hartog, D. N., & Belschak, F. D. (2012). When does transformational leadership enhance
employee proactive behavior? The role of autonomy and role breadth self-efficacy. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 97, 194-202
- Grant, A. M., Parker, S., & Collins, C. (2009). Getting credit for proactive behavior: Supervisor reactions
depend on what you value and how you feel. Personnel Psychology, 62, 31-55.
1
,Week 2
Stam, D., van Knippenberg, D., Wisse, B., & Nederveen Pieterse, A. (2018).
Motivation in words: Promotion-and prevention-oriented leader communication in times of crisis.
Journal of Management, 44, 2859-2887
Main points
Promotion-oriented communication: tendency to aim for reaching an end-state because the
end-state is desirable.
Prevention-oriented communication: tendency to aim for reaching an end-state because of fear
of an undesirable alternative.
Leader endorsement: voluntary acceptance of and cooperation with a leader (voting for a leader,
contributing to a leader’s plans, etc). Leader endorsement is a crucial precursor of leader
effectiveness.
Crises: events that are associated with intense feelings of negative affect regarding the situation and
strong feelings of uncertainty regarding the future.
Transformational leadership: in case of promotion.
Transactional leadership: in case of prevention.
Regulatory fit theory: proposes that individuals will pursue goals that sustain their regulatory focus
more fervently than goals that do not sustain it.
Our findings suggest that for leadership in times of crisis, promotion-oriented communication is more
effective in getting endorsed by followers than either less promotion-oriented communication or
prevention-oriented communication.
Because these findings need not be limited to leader communication (since other behaviors may also
display a regulatory orientation), these findings not only yield insights in effective leader
communication in times of crisis, but also extend an invitation to leadership research to further
develop this regulatory focus perspective on crisis leadership. Given the importance of leadership in
times of crisis as well as the currently modest development of our understanding of such leadership,
further developments would have value-added for leadership theory and practice.
Purpose study: develop a fundamental theory in leadership, not to develop interventions.
What did the researchers want to know and why (literature review / thoughts researchers)
Research demonstrates that situational uncertainty or crisis strongly influences the endorsement of
the more charismatic or decisive leadership styles and that inspirational communication is at the
heart of these styles. However, there is little understanding of what makes leader communication
predictive of support in times of crisis. It is not clear what leaders should communicate in order to be
endorsed in difficult times. We argue that regulatory focus of leader communication, which we refer
to as regulatory orientation, is an important determinant of leadership endorsement during crisis.
Studies on the role of regulatory focus in leadership mostly seem to focus on regulatory fit effects.
Followers may perceive a leader as effective and motivating when the regulatory orientation of the
leader’s communication fits followers’ regulatory focus (leader0follower interactions). Promotion
2
,focused individuals endorse leaders who communicate a promotion orientation, while prevention
focused individuals endorse leaders who communicate a prevention focus.
Crises may induce a prevention focus in followers. Some researchers assume that in crisis situations,
prevention-orientated leader communication creates fit and subsequently leads to more
endorsement than promotion-orientated leadership. Other leadership scholars have suggested that
in times of crisis, followers are especially open to leadership that focuses on hope and faith in a
positive future.
We acknowledge that the uncertainty and negative feelings engendered by crises may induce a
prevention focus in individuals, but we argue (based on the regulatory focus literature) that fit
caused by prevention-orientated communication during crisis serves to intensify the uncertainty and
negative feelings related to the crisis. This will lead to less motivation, less leader endorsement.
Regulatory misfit caused by promotion-orientated communication serves to disrupt the uncertainty
and negative feelings related to the crisis, increasing motivation and endorsement. We propose that
in times of crisis, leader endorsement is contingent on promotion orientated communication.
Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1: crisis moderates the relationship between prevention orientation of the
communication of the leader and the leader’s endorsement by followers such that this relationship is
more negative the more followers experience crisis.
The communicated plans of the leader, and subsequently the leader himself or herself, are
associated with this intensified negative affect and will receive less endorsement from
followers.
Hypothesis 2: crisis moderates the relationship between the promotion orientation of the
communication of the leader and the leader’s endorsement by followers such that this relationship is
more positive the more followers experience crisis.
Misfit between regulatory orientation of leader communication and followers’ experience of
crisis serves to reduce the intensity of the negative affect that individuals are experiencing
during crisis. The leader will be associated with a relief of negative affect and will receive
more endorsement from followers.
Hypothesis 3: crisis moderates the relationship between the prevention orientation of the
communication of the leader and follower’s motivation to realize the leader’s plans such that this
relationship is more negative the more followers experience crisis. BLZ 6
3
, Hypothesis 4: crisis moderates the relationship between the promotion orientation of the
communication of the leader and follower’s motivation to realize the leader’s plans such that this
relationship is more positive the more followers experience this crisis. BLZ6
Hypothesis 5: the interactive effects of regulatory orientation of the leader’s communication and
crisis experience of followers on the leader endorsement by followers is mediated by follower’s
motivation to realize the leader’s plans.
The effects on follower motivation to realize the plans of the leader influence leader
endorsement by followers.
How did they study this
Study 1 tests hypothesis 1 and 2
Archival study. Investigate US presidential endorsement. Coded 99 promotion-orientated words and
98 prevention-orientated words. Investigated the first inaugural addresses of chosen US presidents,
the computer counted the promotion-orientated and prevention orientated words of 35 inaugural
addresses.
Results:
- The results of this study clearly show that promotion-orientated communication interacted
with economic situation and that it became a significant positive predictor of leader
endorsement when economic circumstances were worse than average.
- Promotion-orientated communication is only a positive influence in negative economic
situations.
- No significant effect found for prevention-orientated communication.
So: Presidents who use more promotion-oriented communication are more endorsed but only if
economic growth is low or if inflation is high, while no effects of the use of prevention orientation of
communication surfaces.
Study 2 tests hypothesis 3 and 4
Laboratory experiment. Business students are given a promotion-orientated or prevention-
orientated speech, with a task afterwards, expecting differences in results of the tasks in the
promotion versus the prevention group.
Results:
- In the crisis condition, participants who heard the promotion-orientated leader
communication scored more positive on the concentration task (it motivates higher
performance) in relation to their base line scores, than participants who heard the
prevention-orientated leader communication.
- There is no difference in a no-crisis (i.e. control) condition.
Study 3 tests hypothesis 5
Scenario experiment. Participants are presented a scenario and roleplay a member of the board of
advisers of a fictional company, given the task to advice top management about a new hire, informed
about two candidates for the position: one promotion- (or prevention-) orientated and one “neutral”
candidate.
4
