Assignment: Group Case Study 2

Research Note

Transformational-Transactional Leadership Styles and Followers’

Regulatory Focus Fit Reduces Followers’ Turnover Intentions

Melvyn R. W. Hamstra,1 Nico W. Van Yperen,1 Barbara Wisse,1

and Kai Sassenberg2

1Department of Organizational Psychology, University of Groningen, The Netherlands, 2Knowledge Media Research Center, Tübingen, Germany

Abstract. Individuals’ willingness to remain in their organizations contributes to workforce stability and organizational effectiveness. Working from the notion that different leadership styles encourage followers to self-regulate in distinct ways, we propose regulatory fit between leadership styles and followers’ self-regulatory preferences may reduce followers’ turnover intentions. Corroborating our reasoning, a survey study showed transformational leadership reduced turnover intentions for highly promotion-focused followers, whereas transactional leadership reduced turnover intentions for highly prevention-focused followers. Thus, tailoring leadership to followers’ self-regulatory preferences may contribute to workforce stability and organizational effectiveness.

Keywords: regulatory fit, regulatory focus, leadership styles, turnover intentions

Individuals’ intentions to stay in their organizations aid in maintaining a stable and well-functioning workforce (e.g., Steel & Ovalle, 1984). Although leadership is known to be influential in followers’ turnover intentions (Gerstner & Day, 1997), research and practice may be helped by more insight into conditions in which leadership may, in fact, mit- igate employees’ intention to leave their organization. We propose addressing this issue may benefit from the notion that a central characteristic of leadership is its influence on the way followers attain goals (Bass, 1985; House, 1971). This core aspect of leadership is particularly relevant given recent self-regulation research indicating that a match between individuals’ dispositional self-regulatory orienta- tions and strategies used toward attaining goals exerts pow- erful influence on individuals’ positive experience of their goal-striving (Higgins, 2000). That is, individuals goal-striv- ing in a way that sustains their self-regulatory preference, a phenomenon known as regulatory fit, feel ‘‘right’’ about what they are doing, and attach more value and importance to the activity (Higgins, 2000).

Given the conceptualization of leadership as encourage- ment of goal-striving behavior, different styles of leadership behaviormaybe seenas encouraging followers to employ dis- tinct self-regulatory means. Following regulatory fit theory, individuals experiencing fit from their leader’s style may attach more value and importance to their work, and accord- ingly, be less likely to leave the organization. Thus, the current

study examined relations between the two most prominent leadership styles in the literature, transformational and trans- actional leadership (Bass, 1985; House, 1971, 1977), and fol- lowers’ turnover intentions,while considering themoderating role of followers’ self-regulatory focus (Higgins, 1997). Previous studies addressing leader-follower regulatory fit have shown enhanced leader effectiveness and follower per- formance under fitting visions (Stam, van Knippenberg, & Wisse, 2010), and enhanced engagement for promotion- focused followers under transformational leadership (e.g., Whitford & Moss, 2009). However, regulatory fit has not been studied in the context of turnover intentions, nor has empirical work integrated and incorporated both transforma- tional and transactional leadership, and both promotion and prevention focus.

Transformational leadership stimulates an idealistic, opti- mistic outlook on the future, communicates high expecta- tions, focuses followers’ attention on an abstract, long-term vision, facilitates change, and encourages new ways of work- ing (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1995; House, 1977; Yukl, 1998). Thus, transformational leadership encourages follow- ers to carry out and construe their work in terms of strategic means stressing ideals, optimism, positive expectations, change, eagerness, and an abstract long-term plan. Indeed, these transformational behaviors fit promotion-focused indi- viduals’ directedness at an ideal self (Higgins, 1997), their preference for optimism and positive expectations (Higgins

Journal of Personnel Psychology 2011; Vol. 10(4):182–186 DOI: 10.1027/1866-5888/a000043

� 2011 Hogrefe Publishing. Distributed under the Hogrefe OpenMind License [http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/a000001]

Th is

d oc

um en

t i s c

op yr

ig ht

ed b

y th

e A

m er

ic an

P sy

ch ol

og ic

al A

ss oc

ia tio

n or

o ne

o f i

ts a

lli ed

p ub

lis he

rs .

Th is

a rti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

et al., 2001), their preference for focusing on a long-term time perspective (Förster & Higgins, 2005), working in changing situations (Liberman, Idson, Camacho, & Higgins, 1999), and their eagerness to try out new things (Herzenstein, Posavac, & Brakus, 2007). In sum, transformational leader- ship may be seen as encouraging followers to carry out their work in a promotion-focused manner, and may accordingly elicit fit for those who prefer to use promotion means of self-regulation.

Hypothesis 1: Transformational leadership negatively relates to turnover intentions for promotion-focused followers.

In contrast, transactional leadership gives followers clar- ity about rules and standards to protect the status quo and entails closely monitoring and correcting followers’ errors to ensure short-term success (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1995; House, 1971; Yukl, 1998). Thus, transactional leader- ship encourages followers to carry out and construe their work in terms of strategic means stressing rules, responsibil- ities, expectations, stability, avoiding errors, and a concrete, short-term plan. Indeed, these transactional behaviors fit prevention-focused individuals’ preference to direct goal- striving toward obligations and responsibilities (Higgins, 1997), their preference for stability (Liberman et al., 1999), their concern with avoiding mistakes (Higgins et al., 2001), and their preference to look at short-term details (Förster & Higgins, 2005). In sum, transactional lead- ership may be seen as encouraging followers to carry out their work in a prevention-focused manner, and may accord- ingly elicit fit for those who prefer to use prevention means of self-regulation.

Hypothesis 2: Transactional leadership negatively relates to turnover intentions for prevention-focused followers.

Method

Participants and Procedure

Psychology students (N = 104, 81.7% female) were pres- elected on holding a part-time or full-time job. Their average age was 20.08 years (SD = 4.22), and they had worked at

their respective organizations on average 2.40 years (SD = 2.06), for 12.74 hr per week (SD = 7.46). Participants received course credit for completing an on-line survey about how they experienced their jobs and supervisors. The survey included measures of leadership styles, turnover intention, and regulatory focus.

Measures

Transformational and transactional leadership were assessed using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass & Avolio, 1995; Dutch version, Den Hartog, Van Muijen, & Koopman, 1997). Participants indicated how often their supervisor exhibited certain behaviors on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very often). Twenty items (e.g., ‘‘My supervisor speaks optimistically about the future’’) measured transformational leadership (M = 3.29, SD = .72; a = .92). Transactional leadership (M = 3.32, SD = .57; a = .64) was assessed by the eight items from the contingent reward and active management-by-exception subscales (e.g., ‘‘My supervisor directs my attention toward irregularities, excep- tions, and deviations of what is expected of me’’).

Turnover intention was assessed with the two items (M = 3.91, SD = 1.82; a = .71), ‘‘How likely is it that you will quit your job at this organization in the next six months?’’, and ‘‘How likely is it that you will stay with this organization for the coming two years?’’ (reverse coded; cf. Steel & Ovalle, 1984), on a scale ranging from 1 (very unlikely) to 7 (very likely).

Regulatory focus was measured using the Regulatory Focus Questionnaire (for all items see Semin, Higgins, de Montes, Estourget, & Valencia, 2005). On a scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very often), six items (e.g., ‘‘I feel like I have made progress toward being successful in my life’’) measured promotion focus (M = 4.00, SD = .47; a = .73); six items (e.g., ‘‘Not being careful enough has gotten me into trouble at times’’) assessed prevention focus (M = 3.27, SD = .82; a = .81).

Results

Table 1 presents descriptive statistics and correlations. To test our hypotheses, we performed two hierarchical regres- sion analyses. First, we regressed turnover intentions on transformational leadership, promotion and prevention

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations for all variables

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5

1 Transformational 3.29 0.72 .92 2 Transactional 3.32 0.57 .59** .64 3 Promotion 4.00 0.47 .22* .06 .73 4 Prevention 3.27 0.82 .00 .06 .20* .81 5 Turnover intention 3.91 1.82 �.44** �.14 �.16 �.06 .71

Notes. Reliability coefficients alpha are presented in bold on the diagonal. N = 104. *p < .05. **p < .001.

Melvyn R. W. Hamstra et al.: Regulatory Fit and Turnover Intentions 183

� 2011 Hogrefe Publishing. Distributed under the Hogrefe OpenMind License [http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/a000001]

Journal of Personnel Psychology 2011; Vol. 10(4):182–186

Th is

d oc

um en

t i s c

op yr

ig ht

ed b

y th

e A

m er

ic an

P sy

ch ol

og ic

al A

ss oc

ia tio

n or

o ne

o f i

ts a

lli ed

p ub

lis he

rs .

Th is

a rti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

focus, and the interactions between transformational leader- ship and promotion focus and between transformational leadership and prevention focus. The significant interaction (see Table 2) between transformational leadership and pro- motion focus is plotted in Figure 1. The interaction between transformational leadership and prevention focus was not significant. Supporting Hypothesis 1, simple slopes analyses (Aiken & West, 1991) showed a negative relation between transformational leadership and turnover intentions for highly (+1 SD) promotion-focused followers, b = �.63, t(98) = �4.86, p < .001, but not for followers low (�1 SD) in promotion focus, t(98) = �1.51, ns. Further, high, relative to low, promotion-focused followers reported low turnover intentions at high transformational leadership, b = �.30, t(98) = �2.17, p = .03. At low transformational leadership, no differences in turnover intentions were found

for high, relative to low, promotion-focused follower, t(98) = 1.04, ns.

Second, we regressed turnover intentions on transactional leadership, promotion and prevention focus, and the interac- tions between transactional leadership and promotion focus and between transactional leadership and prevention focus. The significant interaction (seeTable 3) between transactional leadership and prevention focus is plotted in Figure 2. The interaction between transactional leadership and promotion focus was not significant. Supporting Hypothesis 2, the rela- tion between transactional leadership and turnover intentions was negative for highly prevention-focused followers, b = �.41, t(98) = �3.22, p = .002, but nonsignificant for followers low in prevention focus, t(98) = 1.00, ns. Further, high, relative to low, prevention-focused followers reported low turnover intentions at high transactional leadership,

Table 2. Hierarchical regression analyses for Hypothesis 1 (Transformational Leadership · Promotion Focus interaction)

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

B SEb b B SEb b B SEb b B SEb b

1 Sex .37 .47 .08 .02 .46 .00 �.04 .45 �.01 �.03 .46 �.01 Age �.03 .04 �.08 �.02 .04 �.05 �.02 .04 �.05 �.02 .04 �.05

2 TFL �.76 .17 �.42 �.75** .17 �.41 �.71** .17 �.39 Promotion �.11 .18 �.06 �.16 .18 �.09 �.17 .18 �.09 Prevention �.09 .17 �.05 �.10 .17 �.05 �.09 .17 �.05

3 TFL · Proma �.39* .17 �.21 �.39* .17 �.21 TFL · Prev �.10 .16 �.06 �.10 .17 �.05

4 Prom · Prev .01 .18 .00 TFL · Prom · Prev �.11 .17 �.06 R2 .01 .20*** .25*** .25** DR2 .01 .19*** .05* .00

Notes. aIncremental variance explained by only the hypothesized interaction, DR2 = .04, F(1, 98) = 5.15, p = .03. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

hgiH woL

Low Promotion focus (ns)

Tu rn

ov er

In te

nt io

ns

Transformational Leadership

High Promotion focus (p < .001)

Figure 1. The moderating role of followers’ promotion focus in the link between transformational leadership and turnover intentions.

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

Low High

Low Prevention focus (ns)

Tu rn

ov er

In te

nt io

ns

Transactional Leadership

High Prevention focus (p = .002)

Figure 2. The moderating role of followers’ prevention focus in the link between transactional leadership and turnover intentions.

184 Melvyn R. W. Hamstra et al.: Regulatory Fit and Turnover Intentions

Journal of Personnel Psychology 2011; Vol. 10(4):182–186 � 2011 Hogrefe Publishing. Distributed under the Hogrefe OpenMind License [http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/a000001]

Th is

d oc

um en

t i s c

op yr

ig ht

ed b

y th

e A

m er

ic an

P sy

ch ol

og ic

al A

ss oc

ia tio

n or

o ne

o f i

ts a

lli ed

p ub

lis he

rs .

Th is

a rti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

b =�.26, t(98) =�2.05, p = .04, and high turnover intentions at low transactional leadership, b = .30, t(98) = 2.06, p = .04.1

General Discussion

As expected, transformational leadership negatively related to turnover intentions for highly promotion-focused follow- ers, but not for those low in promotion focus; transactional leadership negatively related to turnover intentions for highly prevention-focused followers, but not for those low in prevention focus. Thus, this study adds to the literature on leader-follower fit by providing support for the role of leader-follower regulatory fit in shaping turnover intentions, and by incorporating fitting styles for both promotion- and prevention-focused followers (cf. Whitford & Moss, 2009).

To our knowledge, this is the first study linking regulatory fit to turnover intentions. By considering leadership as encouragement of different manners of self-regulation, and investigating followers’ preferred self-regulatory means, a strength of this research is that it addresses turnover intentions as a result of core motivational characteristics – both of lead- ership and of follower individual differences. Previous research revealed that followers’ personalities influence perceptions and effects of leaders’ characteristics, and partic- ularly, that these effectsmaybedriven by leader-follower sim- ilarity (e.g., Felfe & Schyns, 2006, 2010). Indeed, if we

speculate that the strategies encouraged by transformational and transactional leaders stem from leaders’ own promotion and prevention focus, future research may reveal similarity perceptions occur in, or drive, the fit between transforma- tional-transactional leadership and promotion-prevention focus.

Note that although we have no reason to suspect that stu- dents who hold part-time or full-time jobs would respond dif- ferently to leadership than employees not enrolled in higher education programs, it may be valuable to replicate these find- ings in a different sample. Common method variance may be a limitation of this study. However, given that our conclusions rest on interactions, we believe it does not threaten their valid- ity (Siemsen, Roth, & Oliveira, 2010). Nevertheless, future research may lend further credence to these conclusions by linking regulatory fit to outcomes using different methods, and, although intention is the most established antecedent to actual turnover (Steel & Ovalle, 1984), by investigating whether regulatory fit reduces actual turnover.

Previous research (Markovits, Ullrich, van Dick, & Davis, 2008; cf. Meyer, Becker, & Vandenberghe, 2004) found that promotion-focused employees tend toward affec- tive commitment to their organizations while prevention- focused individuals tend toward continuance commitment. When we combine these findings with the findings of the present study, the question emerges whether fitting leader- ship styles reduce turnover intentions by strengthening followers’ commitment. If so, does this work differently for promotion- and prevention-focused followers? Future

Table 3. Hierarchical regression analyses for Hypothesis 2 (Transactional Leadership · Prevention Focus interaction)

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

B SEb b B SEb b B SEb b B SEb b

1 Sex .37 .47 .08 .12 .50 .03 .23 .47 .05 .23 .48 .05 Age �.03 .04 �.08 �.04 .04 �.10 �.02 .04 �.06 �.02 .04 �.05

2 TAL �.25 .18 �.14 �.26 .17 �.14 �.29 .19 �.16 Promotion �.27 .19 �.15 �.26 .18 �.14 �.26 .18 �.14 Prevention �.04 .19 �.02 .04 .18 .02 .05 .18 .03

3 TAL · Prom �.31 .19 �.16 �.31 .19 �.17 TAL · Preva �.51** .18 �.28 �.50** .18 �.28

4 Prom · Prev �.00 .19 �.00 TAL · Prom · Prev .09 .19 .05 R2 .01 .05 .19** .19* DR2 .01 .04 .14** .00

Notes. aIncremental variance explained by only the hypothesized interaction, DR2 = .07, F(1, 98) = 8.15, p = .005. *p < .05. **p < .01.

1 Originally, the MLQ measures all three components of transactional leadership (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1995): contingent reward, active management-by-exception, and passive management-by-exception (see also Hater & Bass, 1988). However, the inclusion of passive management-by-exception in the construct of transactional leadership has become increasingly controversial, on both theoretical and empirical grounds (e.g., Den Hartog et al., 1997; Garman, Davis-Lenane, & Corrigan, 2003; Yammarino & Bass, 1990). Particularly, including passive management-by-exception tends to decrease the internal consistency of the transactional leadership scale (e.g., Den Hartog et al., 1997; Felfe & Goihl, 2002). Therefore, following Den Hartog and colleagues (1997), our main results are based on the combination of the contingent reward and active management-by-exception dimensions only. However, an analysis with the transactional leadership scale hosting all three original components generates a similar pattern of results. Moreover, further analyses conducted with each of the components separately indicate that, although similar patterns of results are found for all three components, the effects were most pronounced for active management-by-exception.

Melvyn R. W. Hamstra et al.: Regulatory Fit and Turnover Intentions 185

� 2011 Hogrefe Publishing. Distributed under the Hogrefe OpenMind License [http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/a000001]

Journal of Personnel Psychology 2011; Vol. 10(4):182–186

Th is

d oc

um en

t i s c

op yr

ig ht

ed b

y th

e A

m er

ic an

P sy

ch ol

og ic

al A

ss oc

ia tio

n or

o ne

o f i

ts a

lli ed

p ub

lis he

rs .

Th is

a rti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .

research may explore this issue. Moreover, although the present study sheds light on the relationship between fit and retention, research on the relationship between fit and other critical outcome variables is also warranted. For instance, although transformational leadership has been related to engagement for promotion-focused individuals (Whitford & Moss, 2009), it remains unclear which type of leadership enhances engagement for prevention-focused followers. However, we would argue that tailoring leader- ship behavior to followers’ self-regulatory orientations may not only enhance organizational retention and stability, but also follower engagement.

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free Press.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). MLQ multifactor leadership questionnaire for research. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.

Den Hartog, D. N., Van Muijen, J. J., & Koopman, P. L. (1997). Transactional versus transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 19–34.

Felfe, J., & Goihl, K. (2002). Deutsche überarbeitete und ergänzte Version des ‘‘Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire’’ (MLQ) [German revised and supplemented version of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire]. In A. Glöckner-Rist (Ed.), ZUMA- Informationssystem. Elektronisches Handbuch sozialwissens- chaftlicher Erhebungsinstrumente. Version 5.00. Mannheim, Germany: Zentrum für Umfragen, Methoden und Analysen.

Felfe, J., & Schyns, B. (2006). Personality and the perception of transformational leadership: The impact of extraversion, neuroticism, personal need for structure, and occupational self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 708– 739.

Felfe, J., & Schyns, B. (2010). Followers’ personality and the perception of transformational leadership: Further evidence for the similarity hypothesis. British Journal of Management, 21, 393–410.

Förster, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2005). How global versus local perception fits regulatory focus. Psychological Science, 16, 631–636.

Garman, A. N., Davis-Lenane, D., & Corrigan, P. W. (2003). Factor structure of the transformational leadership model in human service teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 803–812.

Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader – member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827–844.

Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superiors’ evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of transformational and transac- tional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 695– 702.

Herzenstein, M., Posavac, S. S., & Brakus, J. J. (2007). Adop- tion of new and really new products: The effects of self- regulation systems and risk salience. Journal of Marketing Research, 44, 251–260.

Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300.

Higgins, E. T. (2000). Making a good decision: Value from fit. American Psychologist, 55, 1217–1230.

Higgins, E. T., Friedman, R. S., Harlow, R. E., Idson, L. C., Ayduk, O. N., & Taylor, A. (2001). Achievement orienta- tions from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus prevention pride. European Journal of Social Psy- chology, 31, 3–23.

House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321–338.

House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Huns & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois Press.

Liberman, N., Idson, L. C., Camacho, C. J., & Higgins, E. T. (1999). Promotion and prevention choices between stability and change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1135–1145.

Markovits, Y., Ullrich, J., van Dick, R., & Davis, A. J. (2008). Regulatory foci and organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 485–489.

Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Vandenberghe, C. (2004). Employee commitment and motivation: A conceptual anal- ysis and integrative model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 991–1007.

Semin, G. R., Higgins, T., de Montes, L., Estourget, Y., & Valencia, J. F. (2005). Linguistic signatures of regulatory focus: How abstraction fits promotion more than prevention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 36–45.

Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and inter- action effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 456– 476.

Stam, D. A., van Knippenberg, D., & Wisse, B. (2010). The role of regulatory fit in visionary leadership. Journal of Organi- zational Behavior, 31, 499–518.

Steel, R. P., & Ovalle, N. K. (1984). A review and meta-analysis of research on the relationship between behavioral intentions and employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 673–686.

Whitford, T., & Moss, S. A. (2009). Transformational leadership in distributed work groups: The moderating role of follower regulatory focus and goal orientation. Communication Research, 36, 810–837.

Yammarino, F. J., & Bass, B. M. (1990). Long-term forecasting of transformational leadership and its effects among naval officers: Some preliminary findings. In K. E. Clark & M. B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of Leadership. West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America.

Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Melvyn R. W. Hamstra

Department of Organizational Psychology University of Groningen Grote Kruisstraat 2/1 9712 TS Groningen The Netherlands Tel. +31 50 363-6432 Fax +31 50 363-4581 E-mail [email protected]

186 Melvyn R. W. Hamstra et al.: Regulatory Fit and Turnover Intentions

Journal of Personnel Psychology 2011; Vol. 10(4):182–186 � 2011 Hogrefe Publishing. Distributed under the Hogrefe OpenMind License [http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/a000001]

Th is

d oc

um en

t i s c

op yr

ig ht

ed b

y th

e A

m er

ic an

P sy

ch ol

og ic

al A

ss oc

ia tio

n or

o ne

o f i

ts a

lli ed

p ub

lis he

rs .

Th is

a rti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r t

he p

er so

na l u

se o

f t he

in di

vi du

al u

se r a

nd is

n ot

to b

e di

ss em

in at

ed b

ro ad

ly .