Organization Studies
http://oss.sagepub.com/
Cultivating Follower Trust: Are All Leader Behaviors Equally Influential?
Morela Hernandez, Chris P. Long and Sim B. Sitkin
Organization Studies 2014 35: 1867 originally published online 15 September 2014
DOI: 10.1177/0170840614546152
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://oss.sagepub.com/content/35/12/1867
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
European Group for Organizational Studies
Additional services and information for Organization Studies can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://oss.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://oss.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
>> Version of Record - Nov 25, 2014
OnlineFirst Version of Record - Sep 15, 2014
What is This?
Downloaded from oss.sagepub.com by guest on December 4, 2014
546152
research-article2014
OSS0010.1177/0170840614546152Organization StudiesHernandez et al.
Article
Cultivating Follower Trust:
Are All Leader Behaviors
Equally Influential?
Organization Studies
2014, Vol. 35(12) 1867­–1892
© The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0170840614546152
www.egosnet.org/os
Morela Hernandez
University of Virginia USA
Chris P. Long
Georgetown University, USA
Sim B. Sitkin
Duke University, USA
Abstract
We draw on the relevant extant literatures to examine the pathways to building trust through leader
behaviors with three distinct emphases: the leader (personal leadership), the leader-follower relationship
(relational leadership), and the situation (contextual leadership). We test this model using experimental data
collected from experienced managers (Study 1) and field data collected from the peers and direct reports of
business executives (Study 2). The results from these two studies both build on and challenge current views
in the trust and leadership literatures about how leaders influence trust. Consistent with past literature,
our findings indicate that various leadership behaviors appear to directly promote follower trust when
analyzed independently. However, when these behaviors are analyzed jointly, relational leadership behaviors
were found to mediate the effects of personal and contextual leadership behaviors on follower trust. The
implications for theory and practice are discussed.
Keywords
context, followers, leaders, relationships, trust
A leader’s capacity to cultivate follower trust affects his or her ability to direct followers.
Follower trust in the leader has been found to facilitate the achievement of organizational goals,
the implementation of organizational changes, and the ability to guide organizations through
challenging situations (e.g., Barnard, 1938; Jung & Avolio, 2000; Selznick, 1957; Weber, 1947).
Although meta-analytic studies have established direct links between a range of leadership
Corresponding author:
Morela Hernandez, University of Virginia, Darden School of Business, Charlottesville, VA 22903, United States
Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from oss.sagepub.com by guest on December 4, 2014
1868
Organization Studies 35(12)
behaviors and follower trust, it remains unclear how multiple types of leadership behaviors
might have simultaneous and distinct influences on the development of follower trust (Colquitt,
Scott, & LePine, 2007; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). Because leadership behaviors typically do not
occur independently, but rather contemporaneously and jointly, a more precise examination of
how some leader behaviors might “have stronger relationships with trust than others” (Dirks &
Ferrin, 2002, p. 615) is necessary. We examine this issue by theorizing and testing how follower
trust can be influenced both directly and indirectly through distinguishable leadership
behaviors.
Given the frequent assertion of the causal interdependence between leadership and trust, it
would be reasonable to expect a well-developed theory of the relationship between these phenomena. However, as reflected in Kouzes and Posner’s (2002, p. 244) assertion that “without trust you
cannot lead,” most of the scholarly and managerial attention has focused on trust as a determinant
or precondition of leader effectiveness rather than exploring the effects of different leadership
behaviors on trust. In only a few studies of trust has research explicitly and systematically examined how leaders might represent a distinct source of trust. Lind and Tyler (1988; Tyler & Degoey,
1995; Tyler & Lind, 1992), for example, argued that trust in authorities is based not only on the
competence of the authority, but also on the exhibition of fair and respectful treatment that foster
feelings of relational ties to the person in the authority position, and the legitimacy of the institutional context within which the authority operates. Similarly, in their meta-analysis, Dirks and
Ferrin (2002) contended that when leaders possess desirable personal characteristics, demonstrate
care and concern for their followers to strengthen relational ties, and make salient how the governing organizational context is dependable and salutary, they can create follower trust. Likewise,
Sitkin (1995) argued that how leaders address aspects of the context (e.g., rules, frameworks, systems) can also influence follower trust. Synthesizing these themes, Sitkin and Lind (2007) posited
that although personal characteristics of the leader and how the leader frames contextual characteristics for followers play important roles in creating follower trust, the leader’s relationship with his
or her followers is crucial in this process.
Building on previous research, we posit that followers decide how much to trust a leader based
on information about the leader, about the leader’s stance regarding his or her followers, and about
the situation in which the leader acts. Accordingly, to frame our analyses we distinguish between
the leader-, relationship-, and situation-focused influences on follower trust. We utilize the indepth leadership review of Hernandez, Eberly, Avolio, and Johnson (2011) in which they examine
the past century of leadership research to delineate a multifaceted perspective of leadership behaviors related to trust. We focus on three paths to follower trust creation based on Hernandez et al.’s
(2011) different “loci” (i.e., sources) of leadership and use Sitkin and Lind’s (2007) nomenclature
to identify each category of leadership. Originating from the leader locus, personal leadership
behaviors are leader-focused leadership behaviors that convey to followers that the leader has personal qualities that merit trust. Originating from the leader-follower dyad locus, relational leadership behaviors are relationship-focused leadership behaviors that facilitate the connections between
leaders and followers and demonstrate to followers that leaders will not take advantage if trust is
conferred. Finally, originating from the collective and context loci, contextual leadership behaviors are situation-focused leadership behaviors that focus on interpreting the organizational dynamics and environment for followers.
Although each category has been explored by a wide variety of scholars, it is unclear whether
all leader behaviors equally influence trust. Leaders are often called upon to exude competence,
maintain relationships, and clarify situational priorities; however, it is not clear if leaders need to
display all of these behaviors, or if one particular category of leader behavior is more critical than
others. Accordingly, to test the relative influence of a multifaceted perspective on leader-follower
Downloaded from oss.sagepub.com by guest on December 4, 2014
1869
Hernandez et al.
trust relations, we juxtapose two alternative ways of modeling the leadership-trust link that have
not yet been compared empirically in the literature.
Our first set of hypotheses aligns with the bulk of existing trust research and conceptualizes
personal, relational, and contextual leadership behaviors as direct influences on follower trust.
Trust scholars have demonstrated that a myriad of leader- and relationship-focused leadership
behaviors, such as displaying integrity, dependability, concern and respect (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002),
predict trust. Scholars have also shown that situation-focused leadership behaviors within groups
that affect followers’ understanding of the context (Shamir & Lapidot, 2003; Sitkin, 1995; Williams,
2001) can affect trust. It is important to note that an underlying assumption in much of this past
research is that each leadership behavior has an independent effect on trust.
In our second set of hypotheses, we posit that relational leadership behaviors represent a central
conduit to follower trust creation. This prediction implies that leadership behaviors that communicate information about the leader (i.e., personal leadership) and situation (i.e., contextual leadership) are filtered through the lens of the leader-follower relationship (Sitkin & Lind, 2007). Indeed,
past trust scholars have emphasized the crucial role that relationship-building leadership behaviors
such as fairness can play in assisting leaders to establish and maintain trust (Levin, Whitener, &
Cross, 2006; Lewicki, Tomlinson, & Gillespie, 2006; Lind, 2001). Building on this work, we propose that relational leadership behaviors mediate the effects of personal and contextual leadership
on follower trust.
Our approach is distinctive in that we build on and empirically test both models to gauge how
all three categories of leadership behaviors independently and jointly influence how leaders can
foster the development of follower trust. In so doing, we answer calls from previous scholars to
“empirically examine the mediating processes involved” (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002, p. 621), “identifying the mechanisms” (Colquitt et al., 2007, p. 921) between the leadership antecedents to follower
trust. Across two studies with diverse participant samples, our research ultimately supports the
centrality of relational leadership in a model of leader influence on follower trust. Our foremost
contribution is our finding that relational leadership behaviors can account, in large part, for the
effects of personal and contextual leadership behaviors on follower trust.
It is important to note that although past research by Colquitt and colleagues (2007) has examined several independent paths (ability, integrity, and benevolence) to trust creation, because their
study was based exclusively within the trust literature, the antecedents to trust did not capture a
comprehensive range of leadership behaviors. Their focus on ability, integrity, and benevolence
represented only two loci of leadership (see Hernandez et al., 2011): the leader—the primary
source from which ability and elements of integrity such as moral character originate—and the
leader-follower dyad—the primary source from which benevolence and elements of integrity such
as fairness originate. Leadership behavior originating from situational influences, such as collective interactions within social networks or contextual elements such as organizational systems,
were not examined. Thus, our article offers a useful extension of Colquitt and colleagues’ study not
only by examining the relative influence of different trust antecedents, but also by expanding the
range of antecedent leadership behaviors to include situational influences.
Taken together, we demonstrate the centrality of relational leadership behaviors in creating follower trust within a comprehensive model of leadership determinants. Our finding that leadership
behaviors do not necessarily affect follower trust independently, but rather that leadership behaviors are often filtered through the leader-follower relationship, enhances our understanding of current theory and practice. Specifically, our research calls for leaders to prioritize relational behaviors
to effectively cultivate their followers’ trust. In the following sections, we begin by utilizing
Hernandez et al.’s (2011) framework to distinguish between the distinct leadership determinants of
follower trust; as such, we examine the multiple ways in which leaders can directly cultivate
Downloaded from oss.sagepub.com by guest on December 4, 2014
1870
Organization Studies 35(12)
follower trust. We then empirically test the central function of relational leadership in determining
how leader-, relationship-, and situation-focused behaviors can affect follower trust.
Leadership Determinants of Follower Trust
We adopt a broad, inclusive approach to conceptualizing how leadership behaviors can influence
trust in order to identify a parsimonious yet sufficiently “comprehensive range of leadership”
activities (Avolio, 2004, p. 1564) that can influence follower trust in the leader. Widely accepted
definitions of leadership conceptualize the phenomenon as an interpersonal process through which
one individual influences the attitudes, beliefs, and behavior of one or more other people (Dirks &
Ferrin, 2002). Trust exists within interpersonal exchanges when individuals “accept vulnerability
based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of another” (Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt,
& Camerer, 1998, p. 395) under conditions of uncertainty and vulnerability (Das & Teng, 1998;
Lewis & Weigert, 1985) and interdependence (Sheppard & Sherman, 1998). For example, follower
trust has been argued to result when the leader is seen as exhibiting the behaviors that lead his or
her constituents to believe that he or she has their best interests at heart (Kouzes & Posner, 1993).
To begin explicating our theoretical model, it is important to first theoretically clarify trust as an
outcome of leadership behaviors. Indeed, Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman (1995) posited that trust
is determined by certain characteristics of the trustee (i.e., “trustworthiness”). In support of this
distinction, meta-analytic findings by Colquitt and colleagues (2007) have shown that trust is a
situational state caused by different types of trustee behaviors. We thus delineate the leadership
behaviors of the trustee (our independent variables) and test their relative influence on follower
trust (our dependent variable).
To build theory on the different paths for trust creation, we examine the vast literature on leadership by utilizing Hernandez et al.’s (2011) organizing framework. Their comprehensive review of
the past century of research consists of identifying the loci (i.e., the source of leadership; leader,
followers, dyads, collective, context)1 and mechanisms (i.e., the mode of transmission; traits, cognition, affect, and behaviors) of leadership. Consistent with this framework, we identified leader-,
relationship-, and situation-focused leadership behaviors that we classified as personal, relational,
and contextual leadership. In the following sections, we discuss each leadership cluster’s direct
influences on follower trust; we then delineate how these paths independently and jointly influence
follower trust.
Leader-focused leadership behaviors: personal leadership
Leader-focused leadership behaviors have a long history in the leadership literature. This is understandable, considering that the locus of leadership was initially believed to reside solely in the
leader (Hernandez et al., 2011). For more than a century, trait approaches examined the personality
characteristics of the leader to distinguish between leaders and non-leaders (e.g., Bowden, 1926;
Galton, 1869; Gibb, 1947; Jenkins, 1947; Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002; Kirkpatrick &
Locke, 1996; Kohs & Irle, 1920; Stogdill, 1948). Fiedler’s contingency theory later examined how
leaders with different styles would differ in their behavior, and thus their effectiveness across situations (Fiedler, 1964, 1971, 1976). More recent advances derived from ethical leadership theory
(Brown, Treviño, & Harrison, 2005) have also expanded beyond discussing traits to explicate how
those traits might serve to orient behaviors and guide decision-making processes. For example,
scholars have proposed that leadership behaviors can communicate the leader’s qualities, such as
a willingness to adhere to high moral standards, and his or her corresponding personal values
(Brown & Treviño, 2006; Ciulla, 2004).
Downloaded from oss.sagepub.com by guest on December 4, 2014
1871
Hernandez et al.
Viewed collectively, this research describes how a leader can influence follower trust by communicating to followers a clear sense of who he or she is as a leader and what he or she brings to
the leadership role. Such behaviors can demonstrate a leader’s task expertise, values, and passion
for what he or she believes, which can enhance the leader’s perceived capacity to credibly and
predictably lead. Accordingly, we classify leader influence on follower trust through sharing information about his or her individual competencies and values as personal leadership (Sitkin & Lind,
2007). Personal leadership provides followers with confidence that the leader is personally capable
and committed to achieving the goals he or she espouses.
Following a large body of work on leadership and trust, we hypothesize that personal leadership
behaviors affect follower trust because they demonstrate levels of competence and credibility that
form the basis for the more calculative aspects of trust (e.g., Doney, Cannon, & Mullen, 1998;
Lewicki & Bunker, 1995; Mayer et al., 1995; Williamson, 1993). When the leader authentically
projects and reliably behaves in accordance with his or her values, the follower is able to more
effectively gauge the leader’s capacity and inclination to act consistently and predictably (e.g.,
Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard, & Werner, 1998). Through these actions, leaders establish that they
are able to provide their followers with skilled and truthful guidance.
Hypothesis 1: The more that leaders exhibit personal leadership behaviors, the more followers
will trust the leader.
Relationship-focused leadership behaviors: relational leadership
Hernandez and colleagues’ (2011) review highlights the variety and breadth of the numerous leadership perspectives that center on the role of the leader-follower relationship. These perspectives
range from situational leadership theory that posits that leader effectiveness is contingent on the
interaction between leader behaviors and follower level of maturity (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969;
1982), to leader member exchange theory (LMX) which focuses on the quality of the leaderfollower interaction (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995), to transformational leadership theory that highlights the role of trust in spurring follower motivation to go above and beyond what is normally
expected of them (Bass, 1985). Crucially, as illustrated by LMX theorists, leadership arises not
from attributes of the leader or the follower alone, but rather from the unique aspects of the leaderfollower relationship (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). The centrality of the dyadic interactions between
leaders and followers is a key feature to this work and thus the dyad is conceptualized as the locus
of leadership (Hernandez et al., 2011).
We build on these insights to identify specific aspects of how interpersonal exchanges between
leader and follower can affect trust as relational leadership behaviors. This dimension of leadership
is based on notions of leadership that do not emphasize the personal qualities of the leader, but
rather the leader-follower relationship. Through relational leadership behaviors, leaders can bolster
their followers’ sense that they are valued contributors (Sluss & Ashforth, 2007). Strong relational
leaders display both a concern for and willingness to respect the personal needs, interests, and
priorities of their followers (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Sitkin & Lind, 2007). By actively displaying
concern for their followers and a high level of respect for their actions, these leaders communicate
their desire to maintain relationships that will not ignore, exclude, or unduly exploit their followers
(Lind, 2001; Van den Bos, Lind, & Wilke, 2001).
We posit that relational leadership behaviors increase follower trust because they signal that the
leader will take into account their followers’ objectives and that the leader will likely act in ways
that promote follower well-being (Mayer et al., 1995). Specifically, actions that show concern,
respect, and fair treatment for followers comprise important social heuristics (Lind, 2001) that, we
Downloaded from oss.sagepub.com by guest on December 4, 2014
1872
Organization Studies 35(12)
argue, signal a positive, pro-social relationship between the leader and individual followers. Social
heuristics, according to Lind (2001), are impressions that may not logically guarantee good treatment or a strong relationship but that nonetheless are widely used to predict the future actions of
another person, especially an authority figure. Social heuristics provide followers with a “good
enough” basis for assessing the advisability of acting pro-socially and, hence, facilitate decisions
to trust without requiring either a long acquaintance with a particular leader or a deep evaluation of
the personal characteristics of that leader (Sitkin & Bies, 1993).
Hypothesis 2: The more that leaders exhibit relational leadership behaviors, the more followers
will trust the leader.
Situation-focused leadership behaviors: contextual leadership
Context can significantly influence the ways through which leadership is created and enacted
(Hernandez et al., 2011). As exemplified in complexity leadership theory (Marion & Uhl-Bien,
2001; Uhl-Bien, Marion, & McKelvey, 2007), situations are rarely static; rather, the contexts
within which individuals lead comprise complex systems that constantly evolve through interactive and dynamic processes. Situation-focused leadership behaviors thus originate from the context
itself, comprised of the culture, norms, processes, and systems of an organization, and by collectives within an organization such as the teams and social networks. As such, following the classification of Hernandez and colleagues (2011), the source of contextual leadership behaviors
encompasses both the context and collective loci of leadership. Taken together, these situational
demands challenge leaders’ capacities to effectively interpret and respond to varying levels of
behavioral, cognitive, and emotional complexity (Denison, Hooijberg, & Quinn, 1995; Hooijberg,
Hunt, & Dodge, 1997). Consequently, it stands to reason that leaders often devote significant
amounts of time and attention to the job of sensemaking (Weick, 1995).
Following this focus, we classify leader behaviors into contextual leadership if they create,
define, or explain the situation and set of procedures and practices for individuals, teams or units.
Leaders help followers make sense of organizational systems and the social dynamics therein. In
exhibiting contextual leadership behaviors, the leader may simplify the context, which in turn provides their followers with a clear understanding of how the unit functions collectively and where it
is headed (e.g., Sitkin, 1995; Sitkin & Lind, 2007; Weick, 1995; Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld,
2005). They put these plans into action by effectively explaining how the work of individuals is
being coordinated within the unit using rules, procedures, practices, and norms that delineate
accountability and outline the parameters of joint work efforts (Tetlock, 1998).
We propose that leaders create follower trust by assisting followers in navigating often uncertain and complex institutional environments (i.e. legal forms, social networks, and societal norms
regarding conflict management and cooperation) to achieve their personal and organizational goals
(House, 1971; House & Mitchell, 1974; Rousseau et al., 1998; Zucker, 1986). Indeed, trusted leaders often take pains to provide their followers with guidance on how to effectively and appropriately cope with and control such contexts (Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). Contextual leadership
thus increases follower trust because it creates a shared situational understanding and a sense of
inclusion for followers. That is, leaders generate follower trust by clarifying how and why the
organization functions, and helping the follower interpret his or her role within a collective and,
more generally, the organizational context. This is important because these leadership behaviors
can provide followers with an increased sense of self-control and confidence that they are a meaningful part of an organization seeking to successfully accomplish its objectives (Sabel, 1993;
Sitkin, 1995; Weick, 1995).
Downloaded from oss.sagepub.com by guest on December 4, 2014
1873
Hernandez et al.
Hypothesis 3: The more that leaders exhibit contextual leadership behaviors, the more followers
will trust the leader.
In addition to describing how three categories of leadership behaviors directly and independently enhance follower trust, our second research objective is to theorize how these behaviors
might simultaneously influence trust development, and how we might model those effects more
accurately. Hence, we turn our attention to outlining a hypothesized set of dynamics among the
three clusters of leadership behaviors and how they jointly influence the development of follower
trust. Specifically, we explore how follower perceptions of their leader’s relational leadership
behaviors can mediate the relationships between follower trust and personal and contextual leadership behaviors.
The Mediating Role of Relational Leadership
The leader-follower relationship plays a central role in determining how followers experience the
organization (e.g., Gerstner & Day, 1997; Lord, Brown, & Freiberg, 1999; Seers & Graen, 1984).
We draw on this basic insight from the literature to propose that a crucial mechanism for trust creation is how followers perceive leader-follower relationships. These relationships determine how
both a leader’s perceived personal credibility and competence, and a leader’s capacity to effectively interpret aspects of the situation, can affect follower trust. Although there are good reasons
to predict that each of our three clusters of leadership actions will directly and independently
enhance follower trust, we test the role that relational leadership behaviors play in forming a central conduit through which trust in leaders is formed.
Following the logic and tone of the social heuristics argument (Lind, 2001), we reason that followers may well base most of their trust in a leader on relational interactions. Rather than basing
trust on a direct assessment of the leader’s competence, or his or her command of a situation, followers employ social heuristic judgements to quickly arrive at a rough assessment of the quality of
their relationship with the leader. If this assessment, via heuristics like concern, respect and fairness, is positive, then the leader is more trusted; if this assessment is not positive, then the leader
is less trusted.
In support of this proposition are meta-analytic findings (Colquitt et al., 2007; Dirks & Ferrin,
2002) which have consistently shown that specific types of relationally focused leader behaviors
are strongly related to trust development. For example, consistent with Dirks and Ferrin (2002),
we contend that issues of fairness and relational support are key antecedents of follower trust.
Five of the seven factors that these scholars classified as primary antecedents to trust in leaders
are subsumed within our relational leadership dimension. Specifically, they identify three fairness dimensions (i.e., distributive, procedural, and interactional), describe participative decision-making, and highlight leader behaviors that demonstrate sensitivity to follower needs and
follower interests.
Additional support for these ideas is provided by Tyler (2003) who observed how the relational
leadership behaviors we describe more strongly predict the extent to which individuals accept (i.e.,
trust) the decisions of their authorities than the extent to which they perceive those authorities to
be competent or to act predictably. Sitkin and Stickel (1996) explain these dynamics by suggesting
that relationship-based behaviors (e.g., sensitivity to others’ needs, a sense of understanding) positively influence trust creation by serving as a filter through which behaviors that are more directly
related to personal characteristics (e.g., individuals’ competence, skills, values) are understood.
Accordingly, we posit that relational leadership behaviors serve as the mechanism through which
personal leadership behaviors influence follower trust creation.
Downloaded from oss.sagepub.com by guest on December 4, 2014
1874
Organization Studies 35(12)
Hypothesis 4: Relational leadership mediates the relationship between personal leadership and
follower trust.
Relational leadership can also account for the link between contextual leadership and follower
trust. Specifically, if contextual leadership actions are undertaken by leaders who do not exhibit
relational leadership behaviors, attempts to institute key organizational design elements (e.g.,
structures, processes, procedures) may be viewed as coercive institutional control mechanisms,
rather than enabling structures that mitigate risk and uncertainty (Adler & Borys, 1996; Long &
Sitkin, 2006; Sitkin, 1995). That is, when leaders do not effectively develop follower perceptions
of them as concerned and caring leaders, leader behaviors intended to assist followers in navigating
organizational systems will be more likely seen as attempts to unduly restrict and exploit followers,
perceptions that fundamentally undermine trust (e.g., Granovetter, 1985; Shapiro, 1987; Sitkin &
Bies, 1993; Sitkin & Stickel, 1996; Yudof, 1981; Zucker, 1986).
Accordingly, although contextual leadership behaviors that mitigate uncertainty by establishing
norms, processes, and structures can directly facilitate follower trust, we posit that trust is created
when leaders enact contextual elements in ways that demonstrate that they care about their followers and understand their followers’ needs. Leaders’ displays of concern, respect, and fairness make
it more likely that followers will accept or adopt the leader’s definition of the organization’s structural and social dynamics. Consistent with this rationale, we propose that relational leadership
behaviors represent the mediating mechanism through which contextual leadership behaviors
influence follower trust.
Hypothesis 5: Relational leadership mediates the relationship between contextual leadership
and follower trust.
Overview of Empirical Tests
We examined the leadership determinants of follower trust in two studies. In Study 1, we examined
the causal ordering of these relationships in a controlled experiment administered to experienced
workers. We manipulated personal, relational, and contextual leadership behaviors in order to
gauge their direct and indirect effects on follower trust. In Study 2, we evaluated these relationships using both peer and direct report ratings from a 360-degree field survey administered to business executives. Specifically, leaders’ peers rated their personal, relational, and contextual
leadership behaviors while their direct reports rated the extent to which they trust their leader. Our
results from these two studies show that although all three categories of leadership behaviors
directly influence follower trust, relational leadership behaviors mediate the relationships of personal and contextual leadership on follower trust.
To effectively test Hypotheses 1 to 5 in these two studies, we first examined the factor structure
of leaders’ personal, relational, and contextual leadership behaviors. To do this, we employed
exploratory factor analysis (EFA) on data obtained from a sample of 848 direct reports who
assessed 27 item-based descriptions of their leaders’ behaviors. All items were measured with
5-point Likert scales. Missing values were replaced by mean values.
Three factors obtaining eigenvalues over 1.0 were retained (alpha extraction; equimax rotation);
two items were dropped because they loaded onto multiple factors. Two additional items were
dropped because they did not load onto a factor at a level greater than .40. The items that were
retained formed three factors that measure personal, relational, and contextual leader behaviors and
obtained Cronbach alphas of .87, .90, and .91, respectively. Table 1 shows the results of the factor
analyses and reliability tests on this data.
Downloaded from oss.sagepub.com by guest on December 4, 2014
Downloaded from oss.sagepub.com by guest on December 4, 2014
aLoadings
over .40 are reported; retained items are in bold.
Displays concern for those he/she leads
Is sensitive to the needs of those he/she leads
Cares about the priorities and interests of those he/she leads
Deals fairly with those he/she leads
Shows respect for people regardless of their level in the organization
Makes an effort to seek out others’ opinions on important issues
Is unbiased in his/her decisions
Recognizes that great efforts do not always succeed
Promotes a shared understanding about complex issues
Makes sure that those he/she leads adequately understand business issues
Explains why things are being done a particular way
Cuts through complex or ambiguous problems to make them easier to understand
Makes clear how responsibilities are being divided
Explains to those he/she leads where the organization/unit is going
Creates processes that facilitate the work
Helps coordinate actions of unit or organization
Resolves conflicts constructively
Is committed to doing what he/she thinks is right
Displays courage in the face of uncertainty
Is passionate about the work your unit does
Is who he/she appears to be
Is smart about what your unit does
Lives his/her values
Encourages those he/she leads to take on tough challenges
Thoroughly understands your unit’s work
Thinks “outside the box”
Protects us from unreasonable blame
Eigenvalues
Reliabilities
Variables
Table 1. Exploratory Factor Analysis of Leadership Dimensionsa.
11.55
0.90
.419
.805
.805
.689
.648
.629
.549
.533
Relational
leadership
1.71
0.91
.446
.677
.664
.651
.638
.600
.591
.544
.468
.441
Contextual
relationship
.656
.655
.580
.565
.503
.493
.459
.444
.436
1.46
0.87
Personal
leadership
Hernandez et al.
1875
1876
Organization Studies 35(12)
Personal leadership
Personal leadership behaviors convey an individual’s unique personal qualities as a leader. The
items we used in these scales measured the extent to which a leader was seen as projecting these
personal leadership qualities. Eight items tapped raters’ thoughts about the leader’s passion (e.g.,
“(__) is passionate about the work the unit does”), expertise (e.g., “(__) thoroughly understands the
unit’s work”) and authenticity (i.e., “(__) lives his/her values”). The composite scale yielded a high
level of reliability (Cronbach alpha = .87).
Relational leadership
When demonstrating relational leadership behaviors, the leader demonstrates concern for and
respect to followers, and carries out fair practices. Seven items tapped into rater perceptions of
leaders’ relational behaviors, including displays of concern (e.g., “(__) displays concern for those
he/she leads”), respect (e.g., “(__) shows respect for people regardless of their level in the organization”), and fairness (e.g., “(__) is unbiased in making decisions”). The scale reliability of this
measure was high (Cronbach alpha = .90).
Contextual leadership
Contextual leadership behaviors help followers to make sense of organizational structures, processes, and policies. Eight items described how leaders create a sense of coherence (e.g., “___
makes clear how responsibilities are being divided”) for followers, simplifies and focuses their
attention (e.g., “(__) cuts through complex or ambiguous problems to make them easier to understand”) and helps followers to effectively coordinate their activities (e.g., “(__) creates processes
that facilitate work”). This scale obtained a high reliability score (Cronbach alpha = .91).
Study 1
Participants
In Study 1, we examined Hypotheses 1 to 5 in an experimental setting; 131 males and 158 females
took part in this study. The work experience of participants ranged between 1 and 58 years, with a
mean of 24.5 (s.d. 11.7) years. Their ages ranged from 22 to 73, with a mean of 45 (s.d. 11.5) years.
Methods
We used Qualtrics, a third-party online survey administration company, for our data collection
efforts. Qualtrics is a company that provides researchers with a population of over one million
individuals over 18 years old. These individuals have previously registered with Qualtrics, provided Qualtrics with their demographic information, and agreed that Qualtrics could contact them
about survey opportunities for which they would be qualified. Once a study is initiated, Qualtrics
sends information about a survey to potential participants. When an individual successfully completes a survey, Qualtrics compensates these participants with “survey cash,” which can be converted into monetary compensation after they complete a minimal number of research studies.
Based on the selection parameters we specified (i.e., individuals who work over 20 hours per
week), Qualtrics estimates that our initial solicitation was received by 1,000 potential respondents.
Of these, roughly 400 potential participants who met our employment restriction of working at
Downloaded from oss.sagepub.com by guest on December 4, 2014
1877
Hernandez et al.
least 20 hours per week received and viewed our solicitation. From this sample, 289 individuals
completed our study, which produced a 72% response rate.
Experimental approach
Each participant was randomly assigned to one of eight conditions that described a set of behaviors
of a leader of a hypothetical work team within a 2 × 2 × 2 between-subjects experimental design.
The leader in each scenario directed a work team to which the participant belonged. We manipulated leader behaviors using three sets of vignettes describing one of two levels of personal leadership (high or low level), relational leadership (high or low level), and contextual leadership (high
or low level). The text of these scenarios is provided in Appendix A.
All participants were first given some general background information about the organization
(e.g., “Your company exists in a competitive industry but your organization is performing reasonably well”), their job function (e.g., “Your job is to examine and write reports about companies
within the retail sector”) and their boss (e.g., “Your immediate boss is Pat Seeley. You have worked
with Pat for a year and a half”). This was common information that each participant received.
Participants were then told that their boss, Pat, hosts bi-weekly meetings and that each member of
their 12-person unit attends these meetings. Participants were instructed to imagine they were part
of this unit and to reflect on their job, boss, and the organizational situation. Next, participants were
given narratives of actions that Pat takes in leading the work unit. Each narrative described the
extent to which Pat engaged in personal, relational, and contextual leadership behaviors. Each
vignette was pre-tested using a 65-person sample comprising students enrolled in an MBA program in the Southeast USA. These data confirmed that the narratives accurately conveyed the three
dimensions of leader behaviors used as independent variables in our study.
When participants finished reading their study scenarios, they were asked to fill out evaluations
of the leader’s personal, relational, and contextual leadership behaviors and provide a general
assessment of their leader’s capabilities. Participants were then asked to judge the level of trust
they would have in the leader described in the scenario. The entire study took participants approximately 15 minutes to complete.
Measures
Across all of the items, participants responded on seven-point Likert-type scales with anchors “1 =
not at all likely,” “4 = somewhat likely,” and “7 = extremely likely.” We standardized all variables
before analyzing them.
The measures of personal, relational, and contextual leadership we use in this study were consistent with those we developed through the factor analysis (a full list of items is provided in
Appendix B). In each case, the wording of these items was only slightly modified to reflect the
content described in the scenarios. The Cronbach alphas for personal, relational, and contextual
leadership were .93, .97, and .95, respectively.
Follower trust. Our measure of trust is consistent with the notion that trust necessitates a willingness
to be vulnerable based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of another (e.g.,
Mayer & Gavin, 2005; Rousseau et al., 1998); thus, our trust scale captured trust-related risks
identified by Sheppard and Sherman (1998). Indeed, past qualitative (Bijlsma & van de Bunt,
2003) and experimental (Malhotra, 2004) investigations have adopted a similar view of trust, centered on trust as related to risk and used a global measure of trust to capture this construct (e.g.,
Brockner, Siegel, Daly, Tyler, & Martin, 1997; Huff & Kelley, 2003). The following five questions
Downloaded from oss.sagepub.com by guest on December 4, 2014
1878
Organization Studies 35(12)
measured follower trust in the leader (Cronbach alpha = .88): “I trust that Pat will honor confidences,” “I expect Pat will live up to his commitments,” “I feel like the team can always rely on
Pat’s word,” “I would depend on Pat’s openness with information and ideas,” and “I expect Pat will
share credit for successes.”
The fit statistics we obtained suggest that the factor structure which includes three leadership
dimensions and our measure of follower trust fit with the data reasonably well: X2/df = 2.94, CFI
= .93, IFI = .92, RMSEA = .082. In addition, chi-squared difference tests confirm that our threefactor model of leadership dimensions fit the data better (at p < .001) than the one-factor model (X2/
df = 4.51, CFI = .86, IFI = .86, RMSEA = .111).
Results
Manipulation checks. We checked our manipulations in two ways. First, using independent t-tests
we found that participants in the high personal leadership condition rated their leaders as exhibiting
a higher level of personal leadership than participants in the low personal leadership condition
(mean difference = 1.32, p < .001). This same pattern was consistent across relational leadership
conditions (mean difference = 2.68, p < .001) and contextual leadership conditions (mean difference = 1.86, p < .001).
Second, because leadership dimensions were highly correlated, we also used paired samples
t-tests to assess the extent to which scenario conditions produced higher levels of perceived leadership on targeted dimensions (e.g., personal leadership) when compared with perceptions of alternative forms of leadership (e.g., vs. relational and contextual leadership). Our manipulation checks
confirmed that when participants encountered the high personal leadership condition, participants’
perceptual ratings of Pat’s personal leadership were higher than their ratings of Pat’s relational
leadership (mean difference = .83, p < .001) and contextual leadership (mean difference = .61,
p < .001). These tests also confirmed that when participants encountered the high relational leadership condition, participants’ perceptual ratings of Pat’s relational leadership were higher than their
ratings of Pat’s personal leadership (mean difference = .53, p < .001) and contextual leadership
(mean difference = .99, p < .001). Finally, our manipulation checks confirmed that when participants encountered the high contextual leadership condition, participants’ perceptual ratings of Pat’s
contextual leadership were higher than their ratings of Pat’s personal leadership (mean difference
= .18, p < .01) and relational leadership (mean difference = .60, p < .001).
Results
We present the descriptive statistics and correlations for this study in Table 2. Of substantive interest, follower trust is associated with the leadership antecedents in the manner that we hypothesized.
That is, personal (r = .79, p < .001), relational (r = .73, p < .001), and contextual (r = .69, p < .001)
leadership behaviors are significantly and positively related to follower trust, supporting Hypotheses
1 to 3.
Next, we tested whether relational leadership mediates the effects of personal and contextual
leadership behaviors on follower trust (Hypotheses 4 and 5) using the SPSS module, INDIRECT
(Preacher & Hayes, 2004, 2008). INDIRECT was chosen for this analysis because it allows mediators to be simultaneously evaluated with a bootstrapping technique that generates 95% confidence
intervals to test the probability that mediation has occurred. As compared to Baron and Kenny’s
(1986) mediation approach and the Sobel test, the Preacher and Hayes non-parametric bootstrapping method has become increasingly utilized because it permits a formal estimation of indirect
effects and prevents the violation of normal distribution assumptions. We find support for our
Downloaded from oss.sagepub.com by guest on December 4, 2014
1879
Hernandez et al.
mediation hypotheses (Hypotheses 4 and 5) when we observe two results. First, that the coefficients of the association between the independent and the mediating variable and between a mediating variable and the criterion variable are significant. Second, that zero is not included in the 95%
confidence interval that is generated to examine the strength of a mediated relationship (Hayes,
2013, 2014).
Accordingly, we observe that personal (β = .55, p < .001), and contextual (β = .19, p < .01) leadership behaviors are both significantly related to relational leadership behaviors. In addition, we
observe that personal (β = .33, p < .001), contextual (β = .21, p < .001), and relational (β = .37,
p < .001) leadership behaviors are positively related to follower trust. Using bootstrapping techniques to conduct the mediation analyses, our evaluation of the confidence intervals examining
these relationships demonstrates that relational leadership behaviors mediate the influence of personal (95% CI .135, .289) and contextual (95% CI .019, .138) leadership behaviors on follower
trust. These results are displayed in Table 3.
Study 1 Discussion
The results of Study 1 offer initial support for Hypotheses 1 to 5. By testing the effects of different
types of leadership behaviors within leader-follower relations in a controlled scenario experiment,
we were able to establish the direction of causality in our model. Study 1 also independently
manipulated leader behaviors, thereby teasing apart their differential effects on follower trust.
Table 2. Study 1: Correlations among Predictor and Criterion Variables.
Variables
Mean
SD
1
1. 2. 3. 4. 3.89
3.63
3.62
4.01
1.44
1.52
1.79
1.51
.77***
.69***
.75***
Personal leadership
Contextual leadership
Relational leadership
Follower trust
2
3
.60***
.69***
.73***
***p < 0.001.
Table 3. Study 1: Analyses Examining Relational Leadership Behaviors Mediating the Effects of Personal
and Contextual Leadership Behaviors on Follower Trust (N = 289).
Mediation analyses
Predicting
relational
leadership1
Predicting
follower
trust2
Independent variables
Personal leadership
Contextual leadership
Relational leadership
Mediation model R2
β
.55***
.19**
β
.33***
.21***
.37***
.67***
Bootstrapping results of independent
variables through relational leadership
on follower trust
Indirect effect
.20
.07
95% CI
(.135, .289)
(.019, .138)
**p < .01, ***p < .001.
1Test of personal and contextual leadership predicting relational leadership.
2Test of relational leadership mediating the effects of personal and contextual leadership on follower trust.
Downloaded from oss.sagepub.com by guest on December 4, 2014
1880
Organization Studies 35(12)
Despite its strong support for our theory, this initial test of our hypotheses had limited external
validity in that we examined followers’ perceptions of their leader’s behaviors in an experimental
context. Although leader behaviors were independently manipulated, the absence of a tangible
work context and repeated interactions with a leader could have limited the inferences drawn by
participants. In our mediation test, for example, personal and contextual leadership behaviors
maintain significant direct effects on follower trust (see Table 3). Although Preacher and Hayes
(2004, 2008) argue that mediation can be established even if the relationship between independent
variables and the dependent variable remains significant with the mediator in the regression equation and that the absence of zero between the upper and lower limit of a bootstrapped 95% CI is
what determines mediation, a residual effect remains. We argue that this could be due to the inherent limitations participants have in interpreting leader behaviors from an artificial context. Thus, to
increase our methodological rigor and the generalizability of our results, we wished to directly
examine the untested external validity of our Study 1 findings. In Study 2, we sought to mitigate
these limitations by examining how the behaviors of practicing managers influence the level of
trust placed in them by their direct reports. Accordingly, we used assessments of actual leader
behaviors to examine the extent to which they jointly and independently influence follower trust.
Study 2
Participants
This study examined the actions taken and outcomes produced by 266 practicing managers enrolled
in a leadership class (87% attended the leadership course as part of their executive MBA program
and 13% were enrolled in a non-degree version of this course). At the time the survey was administered, participants had been employed from 3 to 28 years, with a mean of 10.3 years; 82.7% of
participants were male. Their ages ranged from 27 to 56, with a mean of 35.3 (s.d. 5.8) years of age;
76% described themselves as being from the United States and 24% resided in other countries.
The study was conducted as a part of a 360-degree feedback survey (SDLS, Lind & Sitkin, 2007)
that participants completed in advance of the course. To ensure that participant responses were not
contaminated by course lessons or readings, participants were contacted prior to the beginning of the
course and were asked to submit the names of peers and direct reports who could provide unbiased,
accurate assessments of their leadership approach and the experience working with them. Each
participant’s peers and direct reports were contacted and were required to complete their evaluations
before the course began. Although participation in the survey was mandatory for class attendees,
allowing survey data to be used for research was not and five students opted not to allow their data
to be used for research purposes, so their results were excluded from all analyses.
Measures
Personal, relational, and contextual leadership. The questionnaires used five-point Likert-type scales,
with anchors at 1 (strongly disagree) and 5 (strongly agree). We used items that were consistent
with those obtained through the factor analysis procedures described earlier but were modified to
reflect the perspectives of referents (i.e., peers or direct reports). The Cronbach alphas for these
personal, relational, and contextual leadership scales were .80, .92, and .93, respectively.
Follower trust. In addition, we measured follower trust using the same five-item scale used in
Study 1. The items used were modified slightly to reflect the perspective of participants’ direct
reports. For example, whereas in Study 1 the behaviors referred to “Pat” as the leader, in Study 2,
Downloaded from oss.sagepub.com by guest on December 4, 2014
1881
Hernandez et al.
the online 360-degree survey program utilized the leader’s name to customize the questions to each
participant. The Cronbach alpha for this scale was .88.
Analyses
In Study 2, we used multiple sources of data for our independent and dependent variables, which
allowed us to provide a more rigorous test of our theoretical model. Due to evidence in the social
psychological literature which suggests that leader self-perceptions are often inaccurate (e.g., Bem,
1972; Lewis & Brooks-Gunn, 1979) and susceptible to egoistically biased judgements (e.g.,
Messick, Bloom, Boldizar, & Samuelson, 1985), we relied on ratings from their peers on the extent
to which leaders engaged in personal, relational, and contextual leadership behaviors. In total we
obtained 876 peer reports. A median of three peers rated each course participant. In addition, a total
of 729 direct reports rated the extent to which they trusted their manager. A median of three direct
reports reported on the extent to which they trusted their managers. Merged data from managers’
peers and direct reports resulted in a final sample of 206 managers.
To conduct our analyses, we first averaged the personal, relational, and contextual leadership
ratings that were reported by each leader’s peers. We obtained rWG, ICC1, and ICC2 measures for
personal (rWG = .95; ICC1 = .13; ICC2 = .33), relational (rWG = .94; ICC1 = .23; ICC2 = .49),
and contextual leadership (rWG = .93; ICC1 = .15; ICC2 =.37). Differences in ratings of personal,
contextual, and relational leadership behaviors between peer groups exceeded within peer-group
differences (i.e., at p < .001). Our analyses also required that we aggregate direct report ratings of
the extent to which they trusted their managers. The rWG, ICC1, and ICC2 values for follower
trust (rWG = .96; ICC1 = .20; ICC2 = .54) and analyses indicating that the differences in follower
trust ratings between direct report groups exceeded within direct report-group differences (i.e., at
p < .001) suggested that aggregating these values was appropriate.
Further, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to examine the overall factor structure of personal, relational, and contextual leadership measures. The fit statistics we obtained suggest that the factor structure describing three dimensions of leadership behaviors provides a good
fit with the data: X2/df = 1.90, CFI = .94, IFI = .94, RMSEA = .058. In addition, chi-squared difference tests confirm that this three-factor model fit the data better (p < .001) than the one-factor
model (X2/df = 2.29, CFI = .92, IFI = .91, RMSEA = .070).
Results
The means, standard deviations, and correlations between these variables are presented in Table 4.
We examined the correlations between key variables to assess whether positive relationships exist
between personal, contextual, and relational leadership behaviors and follower trust. Our results
indicate that personal (r = .30, p < .001), relational (r = .36, p < .001), and contextual (r = .34,
p < .001) leadership behaviors are positively related to the extent to which followers trust their
leaders. These findings support Hypotheses 1 to 3.
Table 4. Study 2: Correlations among Predictor and Criterion Variables.
Variables
Mean
SD
1
1. 2. 3. 4. 4.36
4.05
4.17
4.35
.35
.44
.47
.48
.68***
.60***
.30***
Personal leadership
Contextual leadership
Relational leadership
Follower trust
***p < 0.001.
Downloaded from oss.sagepub.com by guest on December 4, 2014
2
3
.65***
.34***
.36***
1882
Organization Studies 35(12)
As with Study 1, we examined Hypotheses 4 and 5 using the SPSS module, INDIRECT
(Preacher & Hayes, 2004, 2008). In line with our predictions, our analyses indicate that relational
leadership behaviors mediate the effects of personal and contextual leadership behaviors on follower trust. Specifically, in addition to the direct, positive effect of relational leadership behaviors
on follower trust (β = .21, p < .05), we observe that personal (β = .29, p < .001) and contextual
(β = .46, p < .01) leadership behaviors are both significant predictors of relational leadership behaviors. Our examination of the confidence intervals around these relationships confirm that relational
leadership behaviors mediate the influence of personal (95% CI .005, .205) and contextual (95%
CI .007, .170) leadership behaviors on follower trust (Table 5).
Table 5. Study 2: Analyses Examining Relational Leadership Behaviors Mediating the Effects of Personal
and Contextual Leadership Behaviors on Follower Trust (N = 206).
Mediation analyses
Predicting
relational
leadership1
Predicting
follower
trust2
Independent variables
Personal leadership
Contextual leadership
Relational leadership
Mediation model R2
β
.29***
.46**
β
.09
.14
.21*
.16***
Bootstrapping results of independent
variables through relational leadership
on follower trust
Indirect effect
.09
.06
95% CI
(.005, .205)
(.007, .170)
*** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < .05.
1Test of personal and contextual leadership predicting relational leadership.
2Test of relational leadership mediating the effects of personal and contextual leadership on follower trust.
Study 2 Discussion
As predicted, the results of our field test suggest that relational leadership behaviors mediate the
effects of personal and contextual leadership behaviors on follower trust. Consistent with the
results of Study 1, which manipulated leader behavior within an experimental context and showed
that relational leadership can account for a significant portion of these effects, the results of Study 2
lend strong support for the mediating effect of relational leadership. Hence, even though there are
significant direct, independent influences of personal, relational, and contextual leadership behaviors on follower trust, our findings demonstrate that relational leadership behaviors are a central
channel through which follower trust is created by leaders.
General Discussion
We theorized about the direct and indirect effects on follower trust of a variety of leadership
behaviors that had been considered in past research. We examined the direct predictions of
leader effects used in prior empirical research and modeled them simultaneously to allow for a
more comprehensive assessment of the causal paths that influence leader-trust relations. Our
findings across both experimental and field studies indicate that personal, relational,
Downloaded from oss.sagepub.com by guest on December 4, 2014
1883
Hernandez et al.
and contextual leadership behaviors have direct influences on follower trust. However, when
modeled jointly, our results suggest that leader behaviors that communicate competence and
other personal attributes, as well as leader structural or context-building leadership behaviors,
influence follower trust through the relational features of follower treatment, such as leader
behaviors that demonstrate concern, respect, and fairness. As such, this research presents important implications for both theory and practice.
Theoretical Implications
Our finding, that relational leadership behaviors mediate the effects of personal and contextual
leadership behaviors on follower trust, challenges some of the received wisdom of the trust literature where researchers have largely emphasized the independent effects of various behaviors on
follower trust (cf. Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). By examining the flow of causality from separate independent variables to follower trust, we advance a more nuanced understanding of leader-follower
relations than explored in prior research. That is, our findings not only show that different pathways to trust exist, as predicted in the trust literature, but also empirically demonstrate that one
pathway represents a central conduit to trust creation. The results demonstrate the centrality of
relational leadership behaviors, underscoring the significance of interpersonal exchanges in the
development of follower trust. These findings, therefore, lend strong support to the social exchange
perspective of trust in leadership where followers perceive their relationship with their leader as
holding mutual obligations, reciprocal communication, and displays of care and consideration
(e.g., Blau, 1968; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Whitener et al., 1998).
Moreover, the current research deepens our understanding of the Mayer et al. (1995) model. We
found that behaviors related to ability and the consistency-based part of integrity (i.e., personal
leadership) are indeed important determinants of trust creation when examined in isolation. We
also found that behaviors associated with benevolence and the fairness-based part of integrity (i.e.,
relational leadership) can account for this effect. These results imply that the various facets of
trustworthiness once posited to similarly affect trust could have differential effects. We also
advance the field beyond a focus on the personal and relational behaviors of leaders that might
arise from different characteristics of the trustee, to build theory on leader behaviors associated
with the situation.
Specifically, we shed light on the possible linkages between leader-follower dyadic interactions
and the situation, answering the numerous calls to further examine the influence of organizational
context on leadership (e.g., Johns 2006, Klein & Kozlowski 2000, Yammarino & Dansereau,
2009). Hernandez and colleagues (2011) asserted that the context plays an active role in shaping
how leadership emerges. Through both proximal influences, such as a leader’s focus on increasing
efficiency, or distal influences, such as the cultural composition of leaders and followers, “context
can shape leadership by redefining the social and task-oriented interaction among individuals”
(Eberly, Johnson, Hernandez, & Avolio, 2013, p. 9). In the current research, we have theoretically
modeled and empirically tested one particular type of social interaction: interpersonal exchanges
that create follower trust. Our findings empirically demonstrate that contextual leadership behaviors, which can interpret and communicate both proximal and distal contextual characteristics to
followers, directly influence these exchanges.
More broadly, our study has implications for the relationship between trust and the institutional environment. There is a substantial history of research by sociologists examining the
effect of institutional routinization on trust (e.g., Fox, 1974; Shapiro, 1987; Zucker, 1977). This
work has found that the adoption of rules, procedures, and routinized cultural practices tends to
have a negative effect on trust. In contrast, management scholars (e.g., Bachmann & Inkpen,
Downloaded from oss.sagepub.com by guest on December 4, 2014
1884
Organization Studies 35(12)
2011; Shamir & Lapidot, 2003; Sitkin, 1995; Sitkin & George, 2005) have found that the explanation of formal rules and procedures can have either a positive or negative effect on trust,
depending upon specific mechanisms or contingencies. Our research suggests that this earlier
sociological work should be reexamined to reflect that both contextual features and explanations of those features may have a different effect on trust when combined with relational leadership behaviors. Specifically, when leaders exhibit relational leadership behaviors, they may
be able to reverse the trust-eroding effects of formalization found in the sociological literature
and mediate the positive direct effects of contextual explanation found in the management
literature.
In sum, we provide an integrative and parsimonious model for linking leadership to trust through
specific influencing actions. By utilizing Hernandez et al.’s (2011) framework and Sitkin and
Lind’s (2007) nomenclature, we advance the current understanding of trust-specific aspects of
leader behavior. This research thus both offers clarity by organizing trust-inducing leader behaviors across multiple theoretical perspectives and builds complexity in our current theorizing about
trust creation.
Practical implications
We have tested the role of relational leadership behavior as a central driver of the effects of other
leadership behavior on trust. That is, personal and context-building leadership behaviors are
effective to the extent they are coupled with a relational foundation that leaders create. This
implies that leaders wishing to enhance follower trust should invest more time in crafting and
maintaining positive leader-follower relationships, than in projecting their own personal characteristics or transmitting the organizational mission. Building trust through such relational avenues can, for instance, increase job performance and organizational citizenship behaviors
(Konovsky & Pugh, 1994).
Our findings also underscore the importance of building trust through reciprocal interpersonal
exchanges. Whereas personal leadership behaviors convey the individual leader’s attributes and
contextual leadership behaviors communicate organizational characteristics, relational leadership
behaviors require the leader to develop individualized knowledge of his or her followers. This
implies that relational leadership involves taking an active role in understanding the needs, aspirations, challenges, and skills of their followers to effectively develop trust in the leader-follower
relationship. Accordingly, managers should not only aim to develop a positive relationship with
their followers, but also actively demonstrate concern and understanding by developing substantive knowledge of their followers through iterative social exchanges.
Drawing on the new insights we provide regarding the context-building elements of leadership
behavior, our findings imply that making sense of organizational characteristics involves more
than mere transmission of contextual information. To build follower trust, information on organizational characteristics should be tied to the relational knowledge leaders have of their followers.
Rather than communicating that the organization values training and development, our findings
imply that follower trust is optimized when the leader is able to connect this overarching emphasis
to the follower’s specific needs. For instance, if the leader knows that acquiring further technical
training is especially important to the follower’s professional aspirations, then highlighting opportunities within the organizational environment that would allow for the development of this specific skill set can enhance the follower’s trust in the leader. By highlighting such opportunities, the
leader is not only clarifying available institutional resources, he or she is doing so while conveying
concern and understanding for the follower.
Downloaded from oss.sagepub.com by guest on December 4, 2014
1885
Hernandez et al.
Finally, the results also have practical implications for leadership development. Leaders who
are attuned to their followers’ experiences and perceptions are more likely to be perceived by followers as exhibiting relational leadership. This can be facilitated both by leader self-awareness and
leader awareness of follower responses. Training programs that utilize reflection, introspection,
and social skills development may be especially efficacious in enhancing leaders’ capabilities to
establish and maintain positive connection with followers. Helping leaders to see their own actions
and their followers’ reactions more clearly can serve as a foundation for a better leader-follower
relationship and, thus, enhanced follower trust in leaders.
Limitations and future research
Our model showed how our theory-driven approach to modeling leadership behavior effects on
trust can enhance both trust and leadership research. Future scholars should seek to continue to test
more complex, embedded models of how trust arises and is influenced by leaders. In particular,
several avenues for future research arise out of the limitations of the current research. First, additional complexity can be captured by using multidimensional measures of trust. In both studies, we
used a global measure of trust based on the willingness to accept vulnerability in the trustee-trustor
relationship (e.g., Mayer & Gavin, 2005; Rousseau et al., 1998; Sheppard & Sherman, 1998).
Although global measures of trust have been used in the literature (e.g., Brockner et al., 1997; Huff
& Kelley, 2003), scholars have argued for trust measures to capture different components of trust
(Dietz & Den Hartog, 2006). Thus, a more nuanced understanding of the effect of leadership
behaviors on trust can be explored in future research by utilizing trust measures that gauge different types of trust. For instance, given the affective emphasis of relational leadership behaviors as
compared to the more cognitive emphasis of personal leadership behaviors, future research should
examine the distinct effects of these leadership behaviors on different types of trust, such as cognitive and affective trust (McAllister, 1995) and, more generally, explore how emotionality might
play a role in determining the type of trust that leaders build (Sloan & Oliver, 2013).
Second, this article offers preliminary evidence that different “characteristics of the trustee”
(Mayer et al., 1995) might have differential effects on trust. To more completely understand the
implications of the current research, future scholars should explore the psychometric properties of
personal and relational leadership behaviors with ability, integrity, benevolence, and trust. For example, although our measures of personal leadership might be closely associated with Mayer et al.
(1995)’s ability and the consistency-based part of integrity, future research should empirically test
these relationships. In Venn diagram terms, it could be the case that the “ability” circle is entirely
within the “personal leadership” circle and that the “integrity” and “personal leadership” circles overlap.2 That our laboratory and field studies produce consistent results lends strong preliminary evidence to support our conclusions; however, before we can call for scholars to rethink the Mayer and
colleagues (1995) framework, additional attention to this measurement issue is needed.
Third, given that the leader-follower relationship evolves over time, future work should also
continue to explore the causal links between leadership behaviors and trust within longitudinal
designs. Our studies offer an important first glance at the directionality of leadership influence.
Future research could further this exploration by examining if and how these effects might evolve
across time periods.
Conclusion
We adopted a multidimensional model of leader-trust relations aimed to capture the richness of these
organizational phenomena. While we were able to replicate the findings of the trust literature by
Downloaded from oss.sagepub.com by guest on December 4, 2014
1886
Organization Studies 35(12)
showing that personal, relational, and contextual leadership behaviors are direct determinants of trust
if examined independently, we also showed that followers’ perceptions of personal and contextual
leadership are mediated by their perceptions of relational leadership. We conclude that, in cultivating
follower trust, all leader behaviors are not equally influential. Our findings suggest that relational
leadership behaviors are the central determinants of follower trust creation.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit
sectors.
Notes
1. Our examination of the leadership determinants of follower trust includes the leader, dyad, collective,
and context loci of leadership. The only locus identified by Hernandez et al. (2011) that we do not examine is the follower locus; this locus refers to the follower behaviors that create leadership. Because our
focus is on how leaders create trust in followers, followers’ own behaviors are not directly relevant.
2. We thank an anonymous reviewer for bringing up this important point.
References
Adler, P. S., & Borys, B. (1996). Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 41, 61–89.
Avolio, B. J. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership. In G. R. Goethals, G. J. Sorenson, & J.M.
Burns (Eds.), Encyclopedia of leadership (pp. 1558–1556). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Bachmann, R., & Inkpen, A. C. (2011). Understanding institutional-based trust building processes in interorganizational relationships. Organization Studies, 32, 281–301.
Barnard, C. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology
(vol. 6, pp. 1–62). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Bijlsma, K. M., & van de Bunt, G. G. (2003). Antecedents of trust in managers: a “bottom up” approach.
Personnel Review, 32, 638–664.
Blau, P. M. (1968). Interaction: Social exchange. In International encyclopedia of the social sciences (vol. 7,
pp. 452–457). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Bowden, A. O. (1926). A study of the personality of student leaders in colleges in the United States. Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 21, 149–160.
Brockner, J., Siegel, P.A., Daly, J.P., Tyler, T., & Martin, C. (1997). When trust matters: The moderating
effect of outcome favorability. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 558–583.
Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. Leadership
Quarterly, 17, 595–616.
Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective
for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97,
117–134.
Ciulla, J. B. (2004). Ethics, the heart of leadership. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A metaanalytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92, 909–927.
Das, T., & Teng, B. S. (1998). Between trust and control: Developing confidence in partner cooperation in
alliances. Academy of Management Review, 23, 491–512.
Downloaded from oss.sagepub.com by guest on December 4, 2014
1887
Hernandez et al.
Denison, D. R., Hooijberg, R., & Quinn, R. E. (1995). Paradox and performance: Toward a theory of behavioral complexity in managerial leadership. Organization Science, 6, 524–540.
Dietz, G., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2006). Measuring trust inside organizations. Personnel Review, 35, 557–588.
Dirks, K.T., & Ferrin, D.L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research
and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 611–628.
Doney, P. M., Cannon, J. P., & Mullen, M. R. (1998). Understanding the influence of national culture on the
development of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 601–621.
Eberly, M. B., Johnson, M. D., Hernandez, M., & Avolio, B. J. (2013). An integrative process model of leadership: examining loci, mechanisms, and event cycles. American Psychologist, 68, 427–443.
Fiedler, F. (1964). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (pp. 149–190). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Fiedler, F. (1971). Validation and extension of the contingency model of leadership effectiveness: A review
of empirical findings. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 128–148.
Fiedler, F. E. (1976). The leadership game: Matching the man to the situation. Organizational Dynamics, 4,
6–16.
Fox, A. (1974). Beyond contract: Work, power and trust relations. London: Faber & Faber.
Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary genius: An inquiry into its laws and consequences. London: Macmillan & Co.
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.
Gibb, C. A. (1947). The principles and traits of leadership. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 42, 267–284.
Graen, G., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219–247.
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American
Journal of Sociology, 91, 481–510.
Hayes, A. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. New York, NY:
Guildford Press.
Hayes, A. (2014). Andrew F. Hayes, PhD. Website address: http://www.afhayes.com/spss-sas-and-mplusmacros-and-code.html.
Hernandez, M., Eberly, M. B., Avolio, B. J., & Johnson, M. D. (2011). The loci and mechanisms of leadership: Exploring a more comprehensive view of leadership theory. Leadership Quarterly, 22, 1165–1185.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1969). Leadership style: Attitudes and behaviors. Training & Development
Journal, 36(5), 50–52.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1982). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hooijberg, R., Hunt, J. G., & Dodge, G. E. (1997). Leadership complexity and development of the leaderplex
model. Journal of Management, 23, 375–408.
House, R. J. (1971). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16,
321–339.
House, R. J., & Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. Journal of Contemporary Business,
3, 81–97.
Huff, L., & Kelley, L. (2003). Levels of organizational trust in individualist versus collectivist societies: A
seven-nation study. Organization Science, 14, 81–90.
Jenkins, W. O. (1947). A review of leadership studies with particular reference to military problems.
Psychological Bulletin, 44(1), 54–79.
Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management
Review, 31, 386–408.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and
quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 765–780.
Jung, D., & Avolio, B. (2000). Opening the black box: An experimental investigation of the mediating effects
of trust and value congruence on transformation and transactional leadership. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 21, 949–964.
Downloaded from oss.sagepub.com by guest on December 4, 2014
1888
Organization Studies 35(12)
Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic leadership
components on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 36–51.
Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2000). Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations:
Foundations, extensions, and new directions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kohs, S. C., & Irle, K. W. (1920). Prophesying army promotion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 73–87.
Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of Management
Journal, 37, 656–669.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1993). Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it, why people demand it. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership challenge (2nd edition). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
Levin, D. Z., Whitener, E. M., & Cross, R. (2006). Perceived trustworthiness of knowledge sources: The
moderating impact of relationship length. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1163–1171.
Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1995). Trust in relationships: A model of trust development and decline. In
B. B. Bunker & J. Z. Rubin (Eds.), Conflict, cooperation and justice (pp. 133–173). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Lewicki, R. J., Tomlinson, E. C., & Gillespie, N. (2006). Models of interpersonal trust development:
Theoretical approaches, empirical evidence, and future directions. Journal of Management, 32,
991–1022.
Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces, 63, 271–286.
Lewis, M., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1979). Social cognition and the acquisition of self. New York, NY: Plenum
Press.
Lind, E. A. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 56–88). Palo
Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Lind, E. A., & Sitkin, S. B (2007). Six domains leadership survey. Chapel Hill, NC: Delta Leadership, Inc.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York, NY: Plenum
Press.
Long, C. P., & Sitkin, S. B. (2006). Trust in the balance: How managers integrate trust-building and control. In R. Bachmann & A. Zaheer (Eds.), Handbook of trust research (pp. 87–106). Cheltenham, UK:
Edward Elgar.
Lord, R. G., Brown, D. J., & Freiberg, S. J. (1999). Understanding the dynamics of leadership: The role of follower self-concepts in the leader/follower relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 78, 167–203.
Malhotra, D. (2004). Trust and reciprocity decisions: The differing perspectives of trustors and trusted parties.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 94, 61–73.
Marion, R., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2001). Leadership in complex organizations. Leadership Quarterly, 12,
389–418.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy
of Management Review, 20, 709–734.
Mayer, R., & Gavin, M. (2005). Trust in management and performance: Who minds the shop while the
employees watch the boss? Academy of Management Journal, 48, 874–888.
McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in
organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24–59.
Messick, D. M., Bloom, S., Boldizar, J. P., & Samuelson, C. D. (1985). Why we are fairer than others. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 480–500.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple
mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 36, 717–731.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing
indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline
view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393–404.
Downloaded from oss.sagepub.com by guest on December 4, 2014
1889
Hernandez et al.
Sabel, C. (1993). Learning by monitoring: The institutions of economic development. In N. J. Smelser &
R. Swedberg (Eds.), The handbook of economic sociology (pp. 137–165). Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Seers, A., & Graen, G. B. (1984). The dual attachment concept: A longitudinal investigation of the combination of task characteristics and leader-member exchange. Organizational Behavior & Human
Performance, 33, 283–306.
Selznick, P. H. (1957). Leadership and administration. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A selfconcept based theory. Organization Science, 4, 577–594.
Shamir, B., & Lapidot, Y. (2003). Trust in organizational superiors: Systemic and collective considerations.
Organization Studies, 24, 463–491.
Shapiro, S. (1987). Social control of impersonal trust. American Journal of Sociology, 93, 623–658.
Sheppard, B. H., & Sherman, D. M. (1998). The grammars of trust: A model and general implications.
Academy of Management Review, 23, 422–437.
Sitkin, S. B. (1995). On the positive effect of legalization on trust. Research on Negotiation in Organizations,
5, 185–217.
Sitkin, S. B., & Bies, R. (1993). The legalistic organization: Definitions, dimensions and dilemmas.
Organization Science, 4, 343–349.
Sitkin, S. B., & George, E. (2005). Managerial trust-building through the use of legitimating formal and informal control mechanisms. International Sociology, 20, 307–338.
Sitkin, S. B., & Lind, E. A. (2007). The six domains of leadership: A new model of developing and assessing
leadership qualities. Chapel Hill, NC: Delta Leadership, Inc.
Sitkin, S. B., & Stickel, D. (1996). The road to hell…: The dynamics of distrust in an era of “quality” management. In R. Kramer & M. Neale (Eds.), Trust in organizations (pp. 196–215). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.
Sloan, P., & Oliver, D. (2013). Building trust in multi-stakeholder partnerships: Critical emotional incidents
and practices of engagement. Organization Studies, 34, 1835–1868.
Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2007). Relational identity and identification: Defining ourselves through
work relationships. Academy of Management Review, 32, 9–32.
Stogdill, R. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of
Psychology, 25, 35–71.
Tetlock, P. E. (1998). Losing our religion: On the collapse of precise normative standards in complex accountability systems. In R. Kramer & M. Neale (Eds.), Influence processes in organizations: Emerging themes
in theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Tyler, T. R. (2003). Trust within organizations. Personnel Review, 32, 556–568.
Tyler, T. R., & Degoey, P. (1995). Collective restraint in social dilemmas: Procedural justice and social identification effects on support for authorities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 482–497.
Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (pp. 115–192). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from
the industrial age to the knowledge era. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 298–318.
Van den Bos, K., Lind, E. A., & Wilke, H. A. (2001). The psychology of procedural justice and distributive
justice viewed from the perspective of fairness heuristic theory. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the
workplace: Volume II. From theory to practice. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organizations. Translated by T. Parsons. New York,
NY: Free Press.
Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking.
Organization Science, 16, 409–421.
Whitener, E., Brodt, S., Korsgaard, A., & Werner, J. (1998). Managers as initiators of trust: An exchange
relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behavior. Academy of Management
Review, 23, 513–530.
Downloaded from oss.sagepub.com by guest on December 4, 2014
1890
Organization Studies 35(12)
Williams, M. (2001). In whom we trust: Group membership as an affective context for trust development.
Academy of Management Review, 26, 377–396.
Williamson, O. (1993). Calculativeness, trust and economic organization. Journal of Law and Economics,
30, 131–145.
Yammarino, F.J., & Dansereau, F. (2009) Multi-level issues in leadership and organizational behavior.
Oxford, UK: Emerald Publishing Group.
Yudof, M. G. (1981). Law, policy, and the public schools. Michigan Law Review, 79, 774–791.
Zucker, L. G. (1977). The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence. American Sociological Review,
42, 726–743.
Zucker, L. G. (1986). Production of trust: Institutional sources of economic structure: 1840–1920. In B. M.
Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (pp. 53–111). Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
Author biographies
Morela Hernandez is an Associate Professor at the Darden School of Business, University of Virginia.
Chris Long is an Assistant Professor at the McDonough School of Business, Georgetown University.
Sim Sitkin is a Professor at the Fuqua School of Business, Duke University.
Appendix A
Study 1 Scenario Component
Scenario introduction. You are going to read a description of your current position as an industry
analyst in a financial services organization. Your job is to examine and write reports about companies within the retail sector. This is a large and diverse sector. You provide these reports to the
organization’s portfolio managers. At times you work alone, at other times, you need to collaborate
with members of your unit.
The Situation. Your company exists in a competitive industry but your organization is performing reasonably well. In addition, you face clear and challenging (but reasonable) pressures in your
current position. Because portfolio managers rely heavily on your recommendations to make their
own time-sensitive decisions, your job tasks are to choose an appropriate mix of companies to analyze and to ensure that your analyses are accurate and timely. Your immediate boss is Pat Seeley.
You have worked with Pat for a year and a half.
Over the past six months, you have become aware that your organization is facing increased
competition from other companies in the financial services sector. You are sensing an increase in
demands on your work.
This situation has prompted the organization to direct Pat to more actively manage and direct
the future development of the unit. As a result, Pat now hosts bi-weekly meetings where he closely
evaluates and documents how your unit’s work is progressing. Each member of the 12-person unit
attends these meetings.
Putting Yourself in the Role. Please imagine that you are part of this 12-person unit and picture
yourself in this context. Think about your job, your boss, and your organizational situation and
what might excite and concern you if you were working in this unit.
Yesterday’s meeting was fairly typical of the unit’s efforts to evaluate its strategic direction and
overall performance. Specifically, you observed that:
Downloaded from oss.sagepub.com by guest on December 4, 2014
1891
Hernandez et al.
Scenario manipulations
High Personal Leadership. Pat’s extensive industry knowledge helped the unit address several
key strategic issues that arose in the meeting. Specifically, Pat was able to generate some creative
solutions for the problems the group members have been encountering in their analyses. As the
meeting progressed, Pat clearly outlined a vision of where to take the unit. Pat was not only enthusiastic about our unit’s work, but was very honest with us about the challenges that we may face in
the future. Pat communicated a commitment to the unit’s success and seems to be willing to make
the personal sacrifices necessary to meet that goal.
Low Personal Leadership. Pat conceded that a relative lack of industry knowledge compromised
his capacity to address several key strategic concerns that arose in the meeting. Specifically, Pat
was not able to generate any creative solutions to the problems that the team members have been
encountering in their analyses. As the meeting progressed, Pat did not appear to have a clear vision
of where to take the unit. Pat lacked passion about our unit’s work and tended to “sugar-coat” the
challenges that we may face in the future. Pat communicated a commitment to the unit’s success
but seems to be unwilling to make the personal sacrifices necessary to meet that goal.
High Relational Leadership. Pat announced several strategic decisions. Other alternatives were
given much consideration; even those who seemed to disagree with Pat were encouraged to air
their views. During the meeting, it became clear that Pat was interested in understanding the challenges from the perspective of the unit’s members. Pat seemed particularly interested in the personal concerns individual members of the unit might have had about our situation or the
organization’s new processes. The discussion was very lively, even heated at times, but Pat was
careful to not hurt anyone’s feelings. Pat explained we must always take the time to be respectful.
Low Relational Leadership. Pat announced several strategic decisions. Other alternatives were not
given much consideration and only those who seemed to agree with Pat were encouraged to air
their views. During the meeting, it became clear that Pat was not interested in understanding the
challenges from the perspective of the unit’s members. Pat did not seem particularly interested in
the personal concerns individual members of the unit might have had about our situation or the
organization’s new processes. The discussion was very lively, even heated at times, and Pat’s comments hurt some feelings. Pat explained we just didn’t have the time to be respectful.
High Contextual Leadership. Pat made it a priority to clarify the unit’s mission, culture, and goals.
This helped prevent frustration and conflict within our unit. Also, in order to avoid confusion, Pat
explained how we fit together as a unit and how our unit functions with other units. At the end of
the meeting, Pat presented a proposal that helped us understand how to coordinate our work. Pat’s
proposal also provided the team with the necessary roadmap to complete our tasks under the now
increased demands of our organizational system.
Low Contextual Leadership. Pat did not make it a priority to clarify the unit’s mission, culture,
and goals. This omission increased the level of frustration and conflict within our unit. Despite
obvious confusion among the team’s members, Pat did not explain how we fit together as a unit or
how our unit functions with other units. Even though Pat presented a proposal at the end of the
meeting, we still did not understand how to coordinate our work. Pat’s proposal simply did not
provide the team with the necessary roadmap to complete our tasks under the now increased
demands of our organizational system.
Downloaded from oss.sagepub.com by guest on December 4, 2014
1892
Organization Studies 35(12)
Appendix B
Measures used in studiesª
Personal leadership
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Pat lives his values.
Pat thoroughly understands the unit’s work.
Pat is smart about what the unit does
Pat thinks “outside the box.”
Pat is passionate about the work the unit does.
Pat displays courage in the face of uncertainty.
Pat is committed to doing what is right.
Pat is who he appears to be.
Relational leadership
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Pat is sensitive to our individual needs.
Pat cares about our individual priorities and interests.
Pat shows respect for people regardless of their level in the organization.
Pat deals fairly with others.
Pat is unbiased in making decisions.
Pat displays concern for others.
Pat makes an effort to seek out others’ opinions on important issues.
Contextual leadership
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Pat creates processes that facilitate the work.
Pat makes clear how responsibilities are being divided.
Pat makes sure that we adequately understand business issues.
Pat promotes a shared understanding about complex issues.
Pat cuts through complex or ambiguous problems to make them easier to understand.
Pat takes time to explain decisions.
Pat explains why things are being done a particular way.
Pat helps to coordinate the actions of the unit.
Follower trust in leader
1. I trust that Pat will honor confidences.
2. I expect Pat will live up to his commitments.
3. I feel like the team can always rely on Pat’s word.
4. I would depend on Pat’s openness with information and ideas.
5. I expect Pat will share credit for successes.
ª Item format used for Study 1 is displayed.
Downloaded from oss.sagepub.com by guest on December 4, 2014