1. Regulatory Mode Fit and Leaders-Followers Affective Reactions
Eyal Rechter1,2 Tory E. Higgins2
1 Ono Academic College
2 Columbia University
ECP 14, Milano, July 2015

2. Regulatory Mode Theory (Kruglanski et al., 2000)
ASSESSMENT Mode
Locomotion Mode
Comparisons Critical evaluation “Do the right thing”
Movement Change “Just do it!”
Self regulation is the process through which people adjust their actions toward their goals [check wikipedia] . If, for example, we want to have dinner, there is a process of making decisions (what to eat, where) and taking actions (call to make a reservation, get to the place). There are considerable differences in the ways people perform this process.
These differences represent the two basic components of one self-regulation theory – regulatory mode theory. These components are called assessment and locomotion, and they describe people’s preferred means of goal pursuit.
Assessment mode refers to the comparative aspect of self regulation, involving critical evaluation of entities or states, the determination of value or importance, to collect information, compare alternatives, goals and means, to make sure taking the right decision (Kruglanski et al., 2000).
Locomotion mode refers to the self-regulatory aspect of movement from state to state, with initiating and maintaining goal-directed progress in a smooth and uninterrupted manner (Kruglanski et al., 2000).
Klem, Higgins, & Kruglanski, 1996: locomotors prefer to move, more likely to immediately begin on a task, assessors to wait for more information and spend more time waiting. Locomotion negatively related and assessment positively related to amount of information considered.

3. Think about an assessment manager, who opposes reckless action, and requires deep information processing, and cautious progress. What happens when his employees are locomotors, eager to get going, can’t stand interruptions or setbacks, and just want to act. Like he’s holding the race horses.
Or about a locomotion manager, who’s like that, he wants to see action, to move forward, but his subordinates, they’re assessors, they need to understand everything, they need to be sure, they simply have to reconsider and ask just one more question before they start going.

4. Goals of Current Study
Leaders and followers regulatory mode fit effects
Regulatory mode fit with the environment (person-job fit; e.g., Kristof- Brown et al., 2005)
Affective
Reactions
So, there are two main goals for the current study:
First, to examine the direct effects of regulatory fit between leaders and followers, while looking simultaneously on leaders and their followers, and directly target leaders’ and followers’ regulatory mode on the personality level.
A second goal is to take the regulatory fit hypothesis outside of the lab (in the case of regulatory mode) and examine it in an organizational context. For this goal this study takes a first step forward, but doesn’t provide the whole answer yet.
In both cases I’m looking at the effects of fit on the affective reactions of leaders and followers toward each other.

5. The Current Study : Method
Organizational Context: Women community sport organization (locomotion- oriented environment) Participants: 206 players 43 coaches
As a first step, I looked for a task environment that will be typical to one regulatory mode – sports, that is inherently locomotion.
Emotions and satisfaction were highly correlated (.62 for coaches, .8
5 for players) and collapsed into a single measure.
טוב גם כאן אני מניחה שזה שקף שצריך לעבוד עליו עיצובית.

6. Locomotion Interaction
Coach Locomotion
γ =.96, S.Er=.38, p<.05
First, looking at the interaction between coaches’ and players’ locomotion, we can see on the left that low-locomotion players show a preference for low-locomotion coaches, while on the right side, high-locomotion players show a preference for high-locomotion coaches.
Or:
N players = 90
N Coaches = 30
Players’ Locomotion
γ =.96, p<.05

7. Assessment Interaction
Coach Assessment
γ=.29, S.Er=.13, p<.05
We see a consistent pattern also with assessment, where low-assessment players show a preference for low-assessment coaches, while high-assessment players show a preference for high assessment-coaches.
Together, the two interactions show that regulatory fit in happens between the motivational orientations of coaches and their players.
N players = 90
N Coaches = 30
Players’ Assessment
γ=.29, p<.05