Method
Participants and design. The participants of this study were 89 second, third, and
fourth year business and economics students from a Dutch University (50 males, 39 females; Mean age 20.85, SD = 2.00). We used a 2 (Crisis: crisis versus prosperity) X 2 (Strategic Goal: promotion versus prevention) factorial design. Participants were randomly assigned to the different conditions.
Procedure. Participants were placed in front of a computer. They were told to
imagine being the head of a big department of a transportation company. They received some information about this department which included the crisis and strategic goal manipulations and were then told that they were expected to give a speech in which they were to share their vision of the department with their employees. They were then asked to write this speech. Afterwards participants were debriefed, thanked and paid 10 euro (approximately 15 USD) for their participation.
Crisis manipulation. We manipulated the situation of the department by
providing the participants with several pieces of information. In the crisis condition participants were told that the department had lost several projects and clients, that turnover had decreased, and that several positions within the department had been lost. Furthermore, we told them that in general the department was in crisis. In the prosperity condition participants were told that the department had gained several projects and clients, that turnover had increased, and that several new positions within the department had been created. Furthermore, we told them that in general the department was prospering. As part of the manipulation we had participants reflect on the situation of their department for several minutes.
Strategic goal manipulation. Manipulations of promotion and prevention
strategic goals have been developed in prior research (see for instance, Friedman & Förster, 2001; Higgins, Shah, & Friedman, 1997). For example, Higgins and colleagues
(1997) formulated promotion strategic goals by promising participants 1 dollar extra pay
(5 instead of 4 dollars) if they performed well on a task (above 70th percentile), creating a
focus on gains. They formulated prevention goals by telling participants they would lose
1 dollar pay (4 instead of 5 dollars) if they performed badly on a task (below 70th
percentile), creating a focus on avoiding losses. We manipulated the strategic goals of participants by manipulating the framing of several goals that they were to imagine being theirs. In the promotion condition participants were told that their four main goals were to develop new projects, to attract new clients, to increase turnover and to create new positions within the department (e.g., focused on reaching gains). In the prevention condition participants were told that their four main goals were to avoid losing existing projects, to avoid losing clients, to avoid a decrease in turnover and to avoid losing positions within the department (e.g., focused on avoiding losses).
Manipulation checks. As a manipulation check for crisis we asked two questions
about the valence of the information of the company on a three-point scale (Į = .99). An item of this scale was “The results of the company over the last year were:” with possible answers being “negative”, “neutral”, and “positive”. A higher score on this measure indicated that the participants deemed the situation more prosperous. As a manipulation check for strategic goal we asked two questions about the focus of the goals given on a three-point scale (Į = .72). An item of this scale was “The goals were:” with possible answers being “focused on avoiding losses”, “not focused on avoiding losses or on reaching gains”, and “focused on reaching gains”. A higher score on this measure indicated that the participants deemed the goals more promotion-oriented (as opposed to prevention-oriented).
Ratings of strategic orientation. To asses the clarity of the expression of strategic
goals in the speeches we measured the strategic orientation of the speeches. We had two expert raters who were blind to the experimental conditions content-code the speeches based on the two questions: “To what extent did the speech focus on promoting a desired end state?” and “To what extend did the speech focus on preventing an undesired end state?” (reverse-coded). The raters answered on a seven-point scale. We averaged the scores of the raters over these two items (rater 1: Į = .85; rater 2: Į = .90; inter-rater reliability: r = .71). A higher score on this measure (M = 4.46, SD = 1.24) indicated that
the speech was more promotion-oriented because it emphasized a positive future to a greater extent and less prevention-oriented because it emphasized a negative future to a lesser extent.
Results
For all analyses we used analysis of variance with the crisis manipulation, the strategic goal manipulation, and their interaction as independent variables.
Manipulation checks. Results showed that in the prosperity condition participants
scored higher on the crisis manipulation check (M = 3.00) than in crisis condition (M = 1.02), F(1, 85) = 7525.29, p < .01, partial Ș2 = .99. Furthermore, in the promotion condition participants scored higher on the strategic goal manipulation check (M = 2.69) than in prevention condition (M = 1.42), F(1, 85) = 179.17, p < .01, partial Ș2 = .69. No other effects were found, suggesting that the manipulations were successful.
Ratings of strategic orientation. We found that speeches were more promotion-
oriented in the prosperity situation (M = 4.77) than in the crisis situation (M = 4.31), F(1, 85) = 4.16, p = .05, partial Ș2 = .05, and also more in the promotion condition (M = 5.34) than in the prevention condition (M = 3.74) F(1, 85) = 51.21, p < .01, partial Ș2 = .38. A significant interaction effect, F(1, 85) = 4.66, p = .03, partial Ș2 = .05 (See Figure 4.1) showed that although even in the prosperity condition participants in the promotion condition (M = 5.33) wrote more promotion-oriented speeches than those in the prevention condition (M = 4.21), F(1, 85) = 13.54, p < .01, partial Ș2 = .09, this difference between participants in the promotion condition (M = 5.34) and the prevention condition (M = 3.26) was more prominent in the crisis condition, F(1, 85) = 40.25, p < .01, partial Ș2 = .32.
Figure 4.1: Promotion-orientation of speeches as a function of situation and strategic goals (Study 1a).
Discussion
In the current study we found that in times of crisis the difference between the visions of leaders with promotion and prevention strategic goals were clearer than in times of prosperity. Apparently, crisis brought out a tendency to more clearly communicate strategic goals, as was evident in a clear distinction between visionary appeals of leaders in the promotion and prevention strategic goal conditions. This confirms Hypothesis 1.
The results show that the various speeches differed in terms of their regulatory content but they make no suggestion about the effectiveness of promotion-oriented or prevention-oriented speeches in times of crisis. Therefore, in the next study we used an experiment in which we provided participants with one of a selection of speeches generated in Study 1a. We had these participants rate the promotion-orientation of the speeches as well as indicate how inspiring they thought the speeches were. This allows us
promotion prevention Strategic Goal prosperity crisis Situation 3 4 5 P ro m o ti o n o ri en ta ti o n promotion prevention Strategic Goal prosperity crisis Situation 3 4 5 P ro m o ti o n o ri en ta ti o n promotion prevention Strategic Goal prosperity crisis Situation 3 4 5 P ro m o ti o n o ri en ta ti o n
to investigate the extent to which promotion-orientation caused speeches to be perceived as more inspiring during crisis and at the same time replicate the findings of Study 1a, concerning the promotion-orientation of the speeches in times of crisis.