Regulatory Mode and Preferred Leadership Styles: How Fit Increases Job Satisfaction Arie W. Kruglanski University of Maryland Antonio Pierro University of Rome, ‘‘La Sapienza’’ E. Tory Higgins Columbia University 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 ‘‘force- ful’’ leadership style, represented by ‘‘coercive’’, ‘‘legitimate’’, and ‘‘directive’’ kinds of strategic influence, whereas individuals high in assessment prefer an ‘‘advisory’’ leader- 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, cognitions 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, wri- ters 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; and (5) reward power, related to one’s ability to dispense desirable objects 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 the ‘‘strong’’ category in which compliance is demanded of others via the invocation of strictly enforcable rules Correspondence to Antonio Pierro, Dipartimento di Psicologia dei Processi di Sviluppo e Socializzazione, Via dei Marsi, 78, 00185 Roma, Italy. E-mail: antonio.pierro@uniroma1.it BASIC AND APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 29(2), 137–149 Copyright # 2007, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.