监督管理模式和领先的领导风格非常适合工作满意度的提高【外文翻译】

外文翻译
原文
Regulatory Mode and Preferred Leadership Styles: How Fit
Increases Job Satisfaction
Material Source:BASIC AND APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY,
29(2),137-149 Author:Arie W. Kruglanski，Antonio Pierro, E. Tory Higgins.
Four studies conducted in diverse organizational contexts examined preferences and fit between two regulatory modes, referred to as ‘‘locomotion’’ and ‘‘assessment’’ (Higgins,Kruglanski, & Pierro, 2003; Kruglanski, et al., 2000), and leadership styles practiced by supervisors over their subordinates. The locomotion mode constitutes the aspect of self-regulation that is concerned with movement from state to state, and the assessment mode constitutes the aspect of self-regulation that is concerned with making comparisons.The present studies consistently show that individuals high in locomotion prefer a ‘‘forceful’’ leadership style, represented by ‘‘coercive’’, ‘‘legitimate’’, and ‘‘directive’’ kinds of strategic influence, whereas individuals high in assessment prefer an ‘‘advisory’’ lead er-ship style, represented by ‘‘expert’’, ‘‘referent’’, and ‘‘participative’’ kinds of strategic influence. Consistent with regulatory fit theory (Higgins, 2000), the job satisfaction of subordinates was found to be higher when the style of strategic influence practiced by their supervisor fit their regulatory mode orientation (high locomotion/‘‘forceful’’ style;high assessment/‘‘advisory’’ style).
Social influence, conceived of in terms of the ways whereby people deliberately affect each other’s actions,co gnitions and feelings, counts among social psychol ogy’s most fundamental topics of study. Whether one deals with conformity, persuasion, leadership or social change, the underlying concern is with social influence in one of its forms. From both theoretical and pragmatic perspectives, a particularly interesting question concerns the strategies of social influence. Over the centuries, writers like Machiavelli, Hobbes, Dale Carnegie and many others had numerous insights to offer about how best to influence people and enlist their
assistance in advancing one’s own interests.
An influential classification of the different potential bases of social influence was offered by French and Raven (1959) in their ground-breaking analysis of social power (see also Raven, 1992, 1993; Raven & Kruglanski,1970). French and Raven (1959) distinguished between five specific power bases: (1) coercive power, related to the threat of punishment; (2) legitimate power, related to one’s normatively accepted right to exert influence;(3) expert power, related to the influencing agent’s superior knowledge recognized by the influence target;(4) referent power, based on the target’s identification with the influencing agent; (5) reward power, related to one’s ability to dispense desirable obj ects like money or effect desirable states like security or pleasure.
The bases of power have been subdivided into two more general categories that Raven and his colleagues refer to as ‘‘strong’’ and ‘‘soft’’ (Bui,Raven,&Schwarzwald,1994; Raven, Schwarzwald, & Koslowsky, 1998).Coercive and legitimate power constitute bases in th e ‘‘strong’’ category in which compliance is demanded of others via the invocation of strictly enforcable rules or through the threat of painful consequences contingent on the failure to comply. By contrast, expert, referent,and reward power constitute bases in the ‘‘soft’’ category in which others are essentially free to decide whether to accept the advice or counsel of the influencer.
Conceptually related to these two types of power bases is the distinction between autocratic and democratic leadership styles (Lewin & Lippit, 1938; Lewin, Lippit & White, 1939; Lippit & White, 1960; see for a review Bass, 1990). In his review of the literature on leadership styles, Bass (1990) concluded that leadership practices fall on a continuum ranging from purely autocratic to purely democratic (see also Stewart & Manz, 1997).This clustering of widely recognized leader behaviors is empirically supported by relevant factor analyses (e.g.,Sweeney, Fiechtner, & Samores, 1975). According to Bass (1990), the autocratic cluster includes such styles as authoritarian, directive, and coercive, whereas the democratic cluster includes such styles as democratic,participative, and consultative.
The present paper is concerned with these two basic types of leadership styles. To avoid associations with extraneous content of political labels (e.g., ‘‘autocratic’’versus ‘‘democratic’’) or labels with evaluative connotations (e.g., ‘‘strong’’ versus ‘‘soft’’), we will refer to the‘‘strong’’/‘‘autocratic’’ type of leadership style as ‘‘forceful’’ and the ‘‘soft’’/‘‘democratic’’ type of leadership style
as ‘‘advisory’’. ‘‘Forceful’’ captures the demanding, direc tive and coercive nature of the ‘‘strong’’/‘‘autocratic’’ typ e of leadership while remaining more neutral in political content and evaluative tone. To ‘‘force’’ means to press,drive or compel. ‘‘Advisory’’ captures the counselling,consultative and participative nature of the ‘‘soft’’/‘‘democratic’’ type of leadershi p style while also remaining more neutral in political content and evaluative tone. To‘‘advise’’ means to recommend, counsel, or consult, and‘‘advised’’ means considered and thought out.
The ‘‘forceful’’ and ‘‘advisory’’ leadership styles rep resent different ways of influencing others. In organizational settings, supervisors use these different strategies to influence the goal pursuits of their subordinates.How do these leadership strategies of supervisors affect the job satisfaction of the subordinates who are the target of the influence strategies? Is impact of leadership strategy invariant across circumstances or is it contingent on a fit between type of leadership strategy and type of target of influence. The present research assumes the latter, and tests the hypothesis that a fit between relevant personality dimensions and type of leadership style plays an important role in determining the impact of supervisors’ social influence strategies on subordi nates’ job satisfaction.
This impact of fit on job satisfaction can be conceptualized in terms of regulatory fit theory (Higgins, 2000).Regulatory fit occurs when individuals’ orientation toward goal pursuit is sustained by the manner of the goal pursuit, by how progress toward the goal is striven for.Previous studies have examined the fit between people’s promotion orientation on accomplishments versus prevention orientation on security, and the strategic means of eagerness (trying to ensure ‘‘hits’’) versus vigilance (trying to ensure ‘‘correct rejections’’). Several studies (see Freitas & Higgins, 2002; Freitas, Liberman, & Higgins, 2002) have found that individuals enjoy an activity more when there is a fit between their regulatory focus orientation and the strategic means used in that activity (promotion focus/eagerness means; prevention focus/vigilance means). There is also evidence from a daily diary study that life satisfaction is higher when there is a fit between individuals’ regulatory focus orientation and the strategic means they use to cope with everyday problems (Grant, Higgins, Baer & Bolger, 2006).
Often individuals themselves determine how they pursue a goal, and when this happens they are likely to pursue the goal in a manner that fits their goal orientation. But it is not always the case that individuals determine how they pursue a goal. Other people with power over them can determine how they pursue a goal,as parents
often do with children, teachers with students, and supervisors with those they supervise. Indeed,in experimental work on the effects of regulatory fit, it is the experimenter who determines how the participants pursue their goal, as by having participants make a decision in an eager way or in a vigilant way, thereby creating fit and non-fit conditions (e.g., Higgins, Idson,Freitas, Spiegel, & Molden, 2003). Thus, although regulatory fit is itself an intrapersonal motivational experience, the determinants of that experience can be interpersonal. Regulatory fit concerns the relation between a person’s goal orientation and the manner o f that person’s goal pursuit—whether the manner sustains or disrupts the orientation—but the manner of goal pursuit can be determined by another person. This is precisely the situation when a supervisor has a leadership style, a preferred way of carrying out goal pursuits or tasks, that determines how subordinates carry out their work. Different leadership styles make the followers pursue their goals, perform their tasks, in different ways,and these different ways can sustain (fit) or disrupt (non-fit) the goal pursuit orientations of the followers.
Supervisors affect the day-to-day activities of their subordinates through the use of different influence strategies. These influence strategies may provide a better fit for the self-regulatory orientations of some subordinates than others. Which self-regulatory orientations might have a better fit with either the ‘‘forceful’’ influence strategy or the ‘‘advisory’’ influence strategy? We hypo thesized that locomotion and assessment, two self-regulatory orientations distinguished by regulatory mode theory (see Higgins et al., 2003; Kruglanski et al., 2000),would have a better fit, respectively, with the ‘‘forceful’’and the ‘‘advisory’’ strategies. Next, we describe these two regulatory modes and discuss how they relate to the ‘‘forceful’’ and ‘‘advisory’’ leadership styles.
Most goal pursuit activities involve two essential self-regulatory modes: a mode of assessment and a mode of locomotion. Assessment is the aspect of self-regulation that is concerned with critically evaluating entities or states, such as goals or means in relation to alternatives in order to judge relative quality (Higgins et al., 2003;Kruglanski et al., 2000). Individuals with strong assessment concerns want to compare all options and search for new possibilities before making a decision, even if that means waiting. They relate past and future actions to critical standards. They want to choose the option that has the best attributes overall compared to the alternative options; they want to make the correct choice (Higgins et al., 2003; Kruglanski et al., 2000).In a decision-making context, for example,
Avnet and Higgins (2003) found that individuals with high assessment concerns preferred to choose among a set of alternatives by fully comparing each option to one another on all of the attribute dimensions. This full comparison strategy is a thorough assessment process because it involves comparing all options on all attributes.
By contrast, the locomotion mode is the aspect of self-regulation that is concerned with movement from state to state. Individuals with strong locomotion concerns want to take action, to get started, even if that means not considering all the options fully. Once the task is initiated, they want to maintain it and complete it without undue disruptions or delays (Higgins et al.,2003; Kruglanski et al., 2000). They want to make steady progress. Avnet and Higgins (2003), for example,found that individuals with high locomotion concerns preferred to make their choice by eliminating at each step whichever option was worst on the attribute dimension being examined. This progressive elimination strategy is a relatively quick and steady way to identify a final course of action because only one option remains at the end.
Research by Higgins, Kruglanski, and their colleagues (see Higgins et al., 2003; Kruglanski et al., 2000) has shown that locomotion and assessment may be differentially emphasized by different individuals.Kruglanski et al. (2000) developed two separate scales to measure chronic individual differences in assessment and locomotion. In a comprehensive series of studies,these authors demonstrated the unidimensionality,internal consistency, and temporal stability of each scale. They found that locomotion and assessment tendencies are essentially uncorrelated with each other (i.e., a person can be high or low on both, or high on one and low on the other, etc.), that each are needed for self-regulatory success, and that each relates to a distinct task orientation and motivational emphasis.
译文
监督管理模式和领先的领导风格:非常适合工作满意度的提高
资料来源:社会心理学基础与应用，29（2），137-149
作者：Arie W. Kruglanski，Antonio Pierro, E. Tory Higgins.
通过在不同的组织环境中进行的四项研究，探讨两种监管模式的喜好和适应，被称为“运动”和“评估”（希金斯，Kruglanski，＆Pierro，2003; Kruglanski，等，2000），领导对其下属的监管就是采用这种领导方式。

这种运动模式形成于各州之间运动的自我规管方面，和比较令人关注的评估模式一起构成了自律与决策方面。

目前的研究一致表明，个人更喜欢在活动中有强有力的领导风格，代表“强制”，“合法''和“指令”等各种战略影响力。

符合调节性分配理论（希金斯，2000），在他们的上司实行战略影响力的风格定位符合他们监管模式的时候，下属的工作满意度被认为是高的。

（高运动/“强有力的作风”；高度评价/“顾问”的方式）。

社会影响力，即人通过设想中的方式刻意影响相互之间的行动，认知和情感，在社会心理学中算是最根本的研究课题了。

不管是否与交易符合，说服，领导或社会变革，其内在关系是它的社会影响形式之一。

无论从理论还是实际的观点看，一个特别有趣的问题是关注社会影响的策略。

在过去的几个世纪里，像马基雅维利，霍布斯，卡内基和许多其他作家有许多见解，提供有关如何更好地影响着人们，并通过他们的协助来提升人们自己的利益。

一种对不同社会影响力的潜在影响力的分类是依据French和Raven所提供的开创性的社会分析理论（参见Raven，1992年，1993年;文&Kruglanski，1970）。

French和Raven（1959）区分了五项具体的权利基础：（1）强制力，有关惩罚的威胁；（2）合法权利，关系到一个人规范地接受施加影响的权利；（3）与代理商专业知识有关的专家权力是通过影响目标识别的；（4）参考权，基于目标的识别对代理人的影响；（5）奖赏权利，关系到一个人支配理想对象的权利如钱或者影响理想状态的，如安全和快乐。

权利的基础已经分为两部分了就如Raven和他的同事所说的“强”和“软”（Bui，Raven，&Schwarzwald，1994:；Raven，Schwarzwald，&Koslowsky，1998）。

强制执行力和合法权利构成了“强”的范畴，其中符合要求的人通过严格强制规则或者通过因未能遵守队伍造成的痛苦后果的威胁。

与之相反，专家，指定对象，和奖励权利一起构成了“软”的范畴，在是否接受建议或谋定的因
素上，他们基本上是自由地做出决定。

从概念上讲，涉及到这两种类型的权力基础是专制和民主这两种领导风格之间的区别（Lewin&Lippit，1938；Lewin，Lippit&White，1939；Lippit&White，1960；参见Bass的文献，1990）。

在他的文献对领导方式的回顾中，Bass（1990）的结论是，领导力属于一个从纯粹的专制到民主的统一体（参见Stewart&Manz，1997）。

这些被广泛认可的领导行为是由一些可聚类实证支持的相关因素分析得出（例如，Sweeney，Fiechtner，&Samores，1975）。

根据Bass的理论（1990），专制独裁集群包括诸如：命令，和强制性等风格，而作为民主集群包括民主，参与，和咨询等风格。

现有的论文涉及到了两个典型的领导风格类型。

为了避免与外界政治标签（例如“专制”与“民主”）或者有评价性的标签联系起来（例如“强”与“弱”），我们可以将“强”/“专制”领导风格类型看成是强制性的，“弱”/“民主”领导风格类型看成是咨询建议性的。

“强制性”领导类型风格具有指导和强制属性，它能获得要求。

强制意味着施压、驱使或强迫。

“咨询建议性”领导风格类型具有咨询和合作属性，它能获得建议。

建议意味着建议、商讨或咨询，同时也意味着深思熟虑。

“强制性”领导风格和“咨询建议性”领导风格代表不同方式来影响他人。

在组织中，管理者使用这些不同的策略来影响其下属的目标追求。

怎样使管理者的领导策略达到更好的影响其下属的工作满意度这个目标呢？领导策略的影响是对整个情况不变或者取决于一个匹配性类型的领导战略对目标类型的影响。

本研究假设是后者，并测验了一个假设，即相关的人格维度和不同领导风格类型在确定管理者的策略对其下属工作满意度的影响上起着关键作用。

这种匹配的工作满意度影响可以作为管理控制理论方面的依据（希金斯，2000）。

当目标的定位由目标追求的方式维持，项目是如何努力实现目标时，调节性匹配才会发生。

以往的研究探讨了以人的晋升为导向对于预防安全导向之间的匹配度，热切的战略手段（试图确保“采样数”）对于警觉的战略手段（试图确保“正确否定”）。

有几项研究（参见Freitas&Higgins，2002；Freitas，Liberman，&Higgins，2002）发现当个人享有更多的活动时，他们之间有一个监管的重点方向，并在这活动中使用相应的战略手段与之配合（晋升为主/热切的手段；预防为主/警惕手段）。

也有研究显示，当某人用每天写日记以应付日常问题作为调控的重要战略手段，那么他的生活满意度就比较高。

通常他们自己决定如何追求一个目标，当发生这种情况，他们很可能以适合自己目标定位的方式来追求。

但个人并非总是这样确定他们所追求的目标。

他人的力量可以决定他们如何追求目标，就像父母与孩子、老师和学生，管理者和他们的下属。

事实上，在符合有关监管作用的实验工作中，通过让参与者
在热切的方式或在警觉的方式作出决定，从而创造适合或不适合的条件来决定实验参与者追求的目标（例如，Higgins，Idson，Freitas，Spiegel，&Molden，2003）。

因此，监管本身是一种匹配个人内在动机的经验，这些经验可以作为人际关系的决定因素。

监督管理匹配关系关注一个人的目标取向和他对目标追求的态度—是否维持现有的方式或破坏原有的方向—但是另外一个人可以决定另一种追求目标的方式。

这正是一个管理者在决定如何开展下属工作，贯彻追求的目标和任务时应有的领导方式。

不同的领导风格以不同的方式让追随者追求自己的目标，执行其任务，并且这些不同的方式可以维持（适合）或中断（不适合）追随者追求的目标取向。