Regulatory mode is a psychological construct pertaining to the self-regulatory orientation of individuals or teams engaged in goal pursuit. Locomotion, the desire for continuous progress or movement in goal pursuit, and assessment, the desire to critically evaluate and compare goals and means, are orthogonal regulatory modes. However, they are also complementary, in that both locomotion and assessment are necessary for effectual goal pursuit. In the present research, the authors sought to demonstrate that multilevel regulatory mode complementarity can positively affect individual-level performance on goal-relevant tasks. The authors recruited 289 employees (177 men, 112 women) from preexisting work teams in workplace organizations in Italy and obtained (a) employees’ individual-level scores on the Regulatory Mode Scale and (b) supervisor ratings of each employee’s work performance. The results supported the multilevel complementarity hypothesis for regulatory mode. Limitations and recommendations for future research are discussed.
AikenL. S.WestS. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2.
AschS. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgment. In GuetzkowH. (Ed.), Groups, leadership and men (pp. 177-190). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press.
3.
AtwaterL. E.OstroffC.YammarinoF. J.FleenorJ. W. (1998). Self-other rating agreement: Does it really matter?Personnel Psychology, 51, 576-597.
4.
AustinJ. T.VillanovaP. (1992). The criterion problem: 1917–1992. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 836-874.
5.
BernardinH. J.SmithP. C. (1981). A clarification of some issues regarding the development and use of behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS). Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 458-463.
6.
BormanW. C.MotowidloS. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In SchmittN.BormanW. C. (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71-98). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
7.
DavisJ. A. (1966). The campus as a frog pond: An application of the theory of relative deprivation to career decisions of college men. American Journal of Sociology, 72, 17-31.
8.
GreenbergJ. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16, 399-432.
9.
HarrisonD. A.PriceK. H.BellM. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 96-107.
10.
HigginsE. T.KruglanskiA. W.PierroA. (2003). Regulatory mode: Locomotion and assessment as distinct orientations. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 293-344). New York, NY: Academic Press.
11.
HigginsE. T.PierroA.KruglanskiA. W. (2008). Re-thinking culture and personality: How self-regulatory universals create cross-cultural differences. In SorrentinoR.YamagushiS. (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition across cultures (pp. 161-190). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
12.
HoggM. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 184-200.
13.
JanisI. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
14.
JohnsG. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31, 386-408.
15.
JudgeT. A.BonoJ. E.IliesR.GerhardtM. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 765-780.
16.
KashyD. A.KennyD. A. (2000). The analysis of data from dyads and groups. In ReisH. T.JuddC. M. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social psychology (pp. 451-477). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
17.
KennyD. A.CookW. (1999). Partner effects in relationship research: Conceptual issues, analytic difficulties, and illustrations. Personal Relationships, 6, 433-448.
18.
KennyD. A.GarciaR. L. (2010a). Using the actor–partner interdependence model to study the effects of group composition (Unpublished manuscript). University of Connecticut, Storrs.
19.
KennyD. A.GarciaR. L. (2010b). Web appendix for using the actor–partner interdependence model to study the effects of group composition (Unpublished manuscript). University of Connecticut, Storrs.
20.
KennyD. A.MannettiL.PierroA.LiviS.KashyD. A. (2002). The statistical analysis of data from small groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 126-137.
21.
KlemA.HigginsE. T.KruglanskiA. W. (1996). Getting started on something versus waiting to do the “right” thing: Locomotion and assessment as distinct regulatory modes (Unpublished manuscript). Columbia University, New York, NY.
22.
Kristof-BrownA.BarrickM. R.StevensC. K. (2005). When opposites attract: A multi-sample demonstration of complementary person-team fit on extraversion. Journal of Personality, 73, 935-957.
23.
KruglanskiA. W.PierroA.MannettiL.HigginsE. T. (2010). The distinct psychologies of “looking” and “leaping”: Assessment and locomotion as the springs of action. Manuscript submitted for publication.
24.
KruglanskiA. W.ThompsonE. P.HigginsE. T.AtashM. N.PierroA.ShahJ. Y.SpiegelS. (2000). To do the right thing! Or to just do it! Locomotion and assessment as distinct self-regulatory imperatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 793-815.
25.
MarksM. A.MathieuJ. E.ZaccaroS. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356-376.
26.
MauroR.PierroA.MannettiL.HigginsE. T.KruglanskiA. W. (2009). The perfect mix: Regulatory complementarity and the speed-accuracy balance in group performance. Psychological Science, 20, 681-685.
27.
PierroA.KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (2006). Regulatory mode and the joys of doing: Effects of “locomotion” and “assessment” on intrinsic and extrinsic task motivation. European Journal of Personality, 20, 355-375.
28.
RushM. C.ThomasJ. C.LordR. G. (1977). Implicit leadership theory: A potential threat to the internal validity of leader behavior questionnaires. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 20, 93-110.
29.
SmithP. C.KendallL. M. (1963). Retranslation of expectations: An approach to the construction of unambiguous anchors for rating scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 47, 149-155.
30.
TettR. P.BurnettD. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 500-517.
31.
TettR. P.MurphyP. J. (2002). Personality and situations in co-worker preference: Similarity and complementarity in worker compatibility. Journal of Business & Psychology, 17, 223-243.
