Transformational and Helping Behavior

Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav.
35, 373–392 (2014)

Published online 26 July 2013 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.1884
Research Article
How transformational leadership influences
follower helping behavior: The role of trust and
prosocial motivation
YUE ZHU1 AND SYED AKHTAR2*
1
Department of Human Resource Management, Zhejiang Gongshang University, Hangzhou, China
2
Department of Management, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong
Summary We proposed and tested a moderated mediation model that jointly examines affect-based and cognition-based
trust as the mediators and prosocial motivation as the moderator in relationships between transformational
leadership and followers’ helping behavior towards coworkers. Data were collected from 348 sales and
servicing employees and their supervisors in four private retail companies and five private manufacturing
companies located in Southeast China. The results showed that both affect-based trust and cognition-based trust
mediated the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ helping behavior towards
coworkers. Furthermore, moderated mediation analyses showed that affect-based trust mediated the
relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ helping behavior towards coworkers only
among employees with high prosocial motivation, whereas cognition-based trust mediated this relationship
among only those with low prosocial motivation. Implications for the theory and practice of leadership are
then discussed. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Keywords: transformational leadership; cognition-based trust; affect-based trust; prosocial motivation;
helping behavior
In the past three decades, numerous theoretical and empirical studies have been devoted to examining transformational
leadership effectiveness and its influencing processes (Barling, Christie, & Hoption, 2010). A cursory look at the
predominant models of transformational leadership (e.g., Bass, 1985; Kark & Shamir, 2002) reveals that trust in
the leader is often placed in a central role. Previous studies have mostly treated trust as a global construct and
examined its central role as a mediator in the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ work
outcomes (e.g., MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Rich, 2001; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990). On the
basis of a meta-analytic review of trust in leaders, Dirks and Ferrin (2002) urged researchers to take into account
multiple dimensions of trust, including affect-based and cognition-based trust and “attempt to distinguish between
the processes involved” (p. 623), but only a limited number of them have actually heeded this call (Schaubroeck,
Lam, & Peng, 2011; Yang & Mossholder, 2010; Yang, Mossholder, & Peng, 2009). We extend this limited stream
of research by examining prosocial motivation as a moderator that may enhance or mitigate the mediated
relationships between transformational leadership and work outcomes through affect-based and cognition-based
trust. Because different dimensions of trust have been considered to fulfill distinct mediating functions
(Schaubroeck et al., 2011), a model of leadership that incorporates trust should seek to identify boundary conditions
under which dimensions of trust have differential effects on work outcomes (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002).
McAllister (1995) conceptualized trust as a two-dimensional construct comprising affect-based and cognition-based
trust. Affect-based trust is grounded upon emotional investments and expressions of genuine care and concern in
trust relationships, whereas cognition-based trust is built upon attributions of the leader’s characteristics, such as
ability, integrity, and reliability (McAllister, 1995). According to Colquitt, LePine, Piccolo, Zapata, and Rich
*Correspondence to: Syed Akhtar, Department of Management, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong.
E-mail: mgsyed@cityu.edu.hk
Received 01 June 2012

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Revised 17 May 2013, Accepted 17 June 2013
374 Y. ZHU AND S. AKHTAR
(2012), affect-based and cognition-based trust tend to represent two distinct functions. Affect-based trust as a social
exchange process (Blau, 1964) reflects a sense of obligation to reciprocate and reinforce emotional bonds between
leaders and followers, whereas cognition-based trust gives followers a sense of confidence about leaders’ decisions
and actions (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995), reducing their perceived uncertainty and risk rooted in a
hierarchical relationship (Colquitt et al., 2012; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Yang & Mossholder, 2010; Yang et al.,
2009). Drawing on such differing functions of trust, we examine the mediating roles of both affect-based and
cognition-based trust in the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ citizenship behavior.
We selected helping behavior as a citizenship behavior for two reasons. First, helping behavior embodies some of
the key elements of citizenship behavior in terms of “voluntarily helping others with, or preventing the occurrence
of work-related problems” (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000, p. 516). Second, and more impor-
tantly, in this study it is associated with the theoretical mechanisms of trust—helping behavior towards coworkers
has been argued as a way of fulfilling an obligation to reciprocate leaders’ care and concern (Aryee, Budhwar, &
Chen, 2002) and as a risk-taking behavior in a relationship (Colquitt, Scott, & LePine, 2007).
Researchers have called for an explicit consideration of contingent variables when formulating and testing
models of transformational leadership (Avolio & Yammarino, 2002). To address this call, we focus on the
mediating processes through affect-based and cognition-based trust and use this as a point of departure in our
analysis of the boundary conditions of transformational leadership processes. We rely on insights from research
on trust to identify moderators of the mediated relationships. Dirks and Ferrin (2001) proposed a moderating model
in which trust might interact with work motives to jointly influence employees’ work outcomes. However,
subsequent studies using moderators of trust have not considered the multidimensional nature of trust (e.g., Grant
& Sumanth, 2009; Szulanski, Cappetta, & Jensen, 2004; Tanghe, Wisse, & van der Flier, 2009). Given their
distinctive functions, the effects of affect-based and cognition-based trust on helping behavior may depend on
different moderating conditions. This nuance would be missed if trust were treated as a global construct.
As mentioned previously, we propose prosocial motivation, which refers to “the desire to expend effort in order
to benefit other people” (Grant & Sumanth, 2009, p. 928), as a boundary condition on the mediating effects of
affect-based and cognition-based trust on the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’
helping behavior. We chose prosocial motivation as a boundary condition because it offers a promising
motivational perspective on why employees might engage in citizenship behaviors, including helping behavior
(Grant & Mayer, 2009). In particular, the literature on prosocial motivation suggests that when performing
citizenship behaviors, employees with high prosocial motivation are likely to be affected by social influence
processes and motivated by interest in others, whereas those with low prosocial motivation tend to rationally calculate
the personal consequences of their own actions and place greater value on self-interest (Grant & Berg, 2011; Meglino &
Korsgaard, 2004; Simon, 1990). These process differences between different degrees of prosocial motivations may
provide a unique insight into the differing effects of the two types of trust on helping behavior. By drawing on the trust
and prosocial motivation literatures, we expect a positive relationship between affect-based trust and helping
behavior to be stronger under high prosocial motivation and a positive relationship between cognition-based trust
and helping behavior to be stronger under low prosocial motivation.
Figure 1 serves as a guide for specifying a moderated mediation model of transformational leadership. In this
model, affect-based trust and cognition-based trust are the mediating mechanisms, and prosocial motivation is a
moderating mechanism. In testing this model, our study contributes in the following ways. First, we examine both
affect-based and cognition-based trust as mediators in the relationship between transformational leadership and
followers’ helping behavior and thereby add to the limited stream of research that takes into account the
multidimensional nature of trust. It should be noted that affect-based and cognition-based trust have been independently
related to either transformational leadership (Schaubroeck et al., 2011) or helping behavior (Yang & Mossholder, 2010)
but not examined as intervening mechanisms in the relationship between transformational leadership and helping
behavior. Second, we specify the conditions under which transformational leaders can effectively exert their
influence on followers’ helping behavior (Avolio & Yammarino, 2002). In considering followers’ prosocial motivation
as a moderator, we extend previous studies by proposing that the mediated relationships between transformational
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 35, 373–392 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/job
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND TRUST 375
Prosocial
motivation
Affect-based
trust
Transformational
Helping
leadership
behavior
Cognition-based
trust
Figure 1. The proposed moderated mediation model
leadership and followers’ helping behavior through affect-based and cognition-based trust depend on followers’
differing prosocial motivation.
Theoretical Background and Hypotheses

In a meta-analytic review, Dirks and Ferrin (2002) distinguished two qualitatively different theoretical perspectives
on trust in leadership—a relationship-based perspective and a character-based perspective. The relationship-based
perspective emphasizes the nature of the leader–follower relationship (e.g., Konovsky & Pugh, 1994; Yang &
Mossholder, 2010; Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard, & Werner, 1998). According to this perspective, trust is
operationalized as a social exchange process that goes beyond the standard economic exchange in ways such that
the parties operate on the basis of care, consideration, and mutual obligations (Dirks & Ferrin,
2002). Specifically, followers who value the care and consideration that leaders express in a relationship
conform to the norm of reciprocity, benefiting leaders in terms of emotional attachments and desired behaviors.
At the same time, leaders’ benevolent behaviors that embody their care and concern may indicate that leaders will
respond with a balanced exchange and will protect their followers’ needs (Colquitt et al., 2012; Dirks & Skarlicki,
2009; Lapidot, Kark, & Shamir, 2007). Colquitt et al. (2012) termed this kind of trust as an exchange-deepening
mechanism, which fosters a sense of reciprocal obligation, caring, and loyalty among both leaders and followers
(Konovsky & Pugh, 1994).
A second perspective on trust in leadership is termed character-based perspective and is largely based on the
Mayer et al. (1995) definition of trust as a willingness to take risks and be vulnerable in a relationship. Dirks and
Ferrin (2002) observed that “trust-related concerns about a leader’s character are important because the leader
may have authority to make decisions that have a significant impact on a follower and the follower’s ability to
achieve his or her goals (e.g., promotions, pay, work assignments, layoffs)” (p. 612). Followers may thus have a
reason to cooperate with the leaders so as to maximize their personal outcomes, but “choosing to do so also opens
the door to potential exploitation” (Colquitt et al., 2012, p. 5), as leaders may abuse their power by not recognizing
followers’ contributions. From the employees’ perspective, the dilemma as to whether or not to cooperate creates a
sense of uncertainty and risk. To reduce such perceived uncertainty and risk, followers tend to increase the
predictability of their leaders’ actions by rationally considering their prior experiences with the leaders or by
seeking evidence from others (Molm, Schaefer, & Collett, 2007). In so doing, followers make attributions about
a leader’s characteristics, such as integrity, dependability, and ability, that influence their sense of vulnerability
in a hierarchical relationship (Colquitt et al., 2012; Schoorman, Mayer, & Davis, 2007).
According to Dirks and Ferrin (2002), the relationship-based perspective is primarily associated with affect-based
definitions of trust, whereas character-based perspective is primarily associated with cognition-based definitions of
DOI: 10.1002/job
trust. They called on researchers to match processes (e.g., social exchange) with appropriate definitions of trust (e.g.,
affect-based trust) and include both affect-based and cognition-based trust within a single study. In the following
sections, we use this theoretical framework to explain the linkages in the proposed research model shown in Figure 1.
Transformational leadership and two-dimensional trust

Transformational leaders can evoke their followers’ trust in both affective and cognitive domains (Schaubroeck
et al., 2011), but for different reasons. From a relationship-based perspective, affect-based trust consists of
emotional bonds that arise from social interaction and a sense of others’ values and motives (Chua, Ingram, &
Morris, 2008; McAllister, 1995). It reflects a deeper social relationship involving a long-term and open-ended
exchange. The essence of developing affect-based trust is establishing a socio-emotional exchange relationship
between leaders and followers such that “the exchange denotes a high quality relationship, and issues of care and
consideration in the relationship are central” (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002, p. 612). According to Bass (1985), transformational
leadership involves a social exchange process that is different from any material or economic exchange involved in
transactional leadership (Pillai, Schriesheim, & Williams, 1999). Transformational leaders are known to empower
followers and consider their individual needs (Bass, 1985). As a result, leaders’ behaviors, such as intellectual
stimulation and individualized consideration, represent a kind of social exchange resource for expressing respect
and consideration (Basu & Green, 1997). When followers experience leaders’ benevolence (i.e., care and concern)
as well as feelings of being valued in a relationship, they will reciprocate in terms of their emotional attachment,
thereby developing affect-based trust in their leader (Colquitt et al., 2012; Lapidot et al., 2007).
From a character-based perspective, transformational leaders may engage in a series of impression management
activities in order to build and bolster a good image (Bass, 1985). They may establish a devoted and capable image
through their written communications and public speeches, such that they can successfully convince their followers
to put faith in their ideals (Bass, 1985). The trust arising from this process seems to have a cognitive element,
because direct social interaction is not necessarily involved. Moreover, in organizational contexts, typical
transformational leadership behaviors also include articulating an appealing and challenging vision, displaying
unconventional behaviors, inviting followers to contribute to decision making, and stimulating them to think and
act creatively (Bass, 1999). These behaviors send out signals about the attributes of the leaders. Consequently,
followers draw inferences about their leaders’ characteristics, such as their reliability, integrity, and ability, which
are the main components of cognition-based trust.
The mediating role of affect-based and cognition-based trust

Transformational leaders transform followers’ values, beliefs, and attitudes so that they are willing to perform
beyond the minimum levels specified by the organization (Bass, 1999). They convert follower motivation from
self-interest to collective interest by emphasizing a collective identity (Lord, Brown, & Freiberg, 1999). Individuals
who hold a collective vision without looking for immediate personal rewards may benefit their peers, leaders, and
organizations in the form of citizenship behavior (e.g., helping behavior) (Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang, & Chen,
2005). Empirically, the positive relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ helping behavior
has been well demonstrated (Kirkman, Chen, Farh, Chen, & Lowe, 2009; Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006; Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, & Bommer, 1996). Some empirical studies have also tested the mediating role of trust in the effects
of transformational leadership on helping behavior (e.g., MacKenzie et al., 2001; Pillai et al., 1999; Podsakoff
et al., 1990). As mentioned previously, these studies have used trust as a one-dimensional construct. However,
given the distinctions between cognition-based and affect-based trust, we propose that each of these dimensions
of trust mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and helping behavior for different theoretical
reasons. That is, transformational leaders may stimulate followers’ affect-based trust by instilling a sense of
DOI: 10.1002/job
obligation, which in turn may promote followers’ helping behavior. On the other hand, followers’ cognition-based
trust that is grounded on transformational leaders’ positive personal attributes reduces perceived risk in a
hierarchical relationship, such that followers are willing to engage in helping behavior. The rationale underlying
these propositions is presented in the following.
Organ (1990) observed that social exchange theory is especially relevant to understanding discretionary behavior
(e.g., helping behavior) at work. If followers view their exchange as social, they will feel an obligation to
reciprocate leaders’ treatments by performing citizenship behavior (Farh, Podsakoff, & Organ, 1990; Organ,
1990). Helping behavior towards coworkers is one type of citizenship behavior that is recognized to benefit leaders
(Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000; Settoon, Bennett, & Liden, 1996). For instance, helping coworkers
with a task on which the leader is dependent contributes to furthering the leader’s task-related goals (Poon, 2006).
Furthermore, if experienced followers help in orienting new followers, it may enable the leader to “conserve
energy” and devote his or her time to more important aspects of the job (MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Fetter, 1991;
Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997). It is in this context that followers’ helping behavior towards coworkers is
considered as a form of reciprocity for valued resources exchanged in a socio-emotional relationship with the leader
(Aryee et al., 2002; Korsgaard, Brodt, & Whitener, 2002; Yang & Mossholder, 2010). We have drawn on this logic
to explain the mediating role of affect-based trust in the relationship between transformational leadership and
helping behavior, because this mediation reflects a social exchange relationship accompanied by mutual obligations
and affective bonds. Transformational leaders convey care and consideration to followers through social exchange
relationships, triggering a high level of affect-based trust in the leader. Followers who are motivated by the obligation
to reciprocate regard helping behavior as a form of social exchange resource that benefits leaders. In particular, affect-
based trust enhances followers’ beliefs that leaders will respond with a balanced social exchange in relationships (Colquitt
et al., 2012). Such realization further encourages followers to continue investing time and effort and to maintain social
exchanges with the leaders by performing helping behavior. In other words, affect-based trust deepens the
leader–follower social exchange process (Blau, 1964) and inspires followers to go the extra mile (Colquitt
et al., 2012; Konovsky & Pugh, 1994). At an empirical level, although the mediating effect of affect-based
trust on helping behavior towards coworkers has not been examined directly (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002), indirect
support can be taken from the Podsakoff et al. (1990) study, which conceptualized trust as loyalty to the leader, with
an emphasis on emotional investment in the leader–follower relationship. Their study showed that trust mediated
the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ helping behavior. In light of the preceding
discussion, the following mediation hypothesis is proposed.
Hypothesis 1a: Affect-based trust mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’
helping behavior.
Even though helping coworkers is not formally rewarded by organizations, followers may use such a behavior in
strategic ways to create and promote a positive image of themselves, attempting to achieve recognition from the
leaders (Grant & Mayer, 2009; Hui, Lam, & Law, 2000). However, engaging in helping behavior may create a sense
of vulnerability, because leaders may not in fact compensate for citizenship behaviors that are beyond the scope of
followers’ jobs (Dirks & Skarlicki, 2004; Mayer et al., 1995; Poon, 2006). From the character-based perspective of
trust, cognition-based trust in the leader can reduce followers’ perceived risk of being vulnerable in a hierarchical
relationship (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Mayer et al., 1995). When cognition-based trust is present, followers do not
have to be anxious or concerned about leaders’ potential exploitative behavior (Mayer & Gavin, 2005). Instead,
followers may feel comfortable engaging in risk-taking behavior (i.e., helping coworkers) because they believe that
leaders have integrity and are dependable and reliable (Mayer et al., 1995; Poon, 2006) and will respond to their
citizenship behaviors in kind (Dirks & Skarlicki, 2004). Thus, it appears that cognition-based trust arising from
transformational leadership can create a sense of confidence in leaders’ future decisions, which can inspire followers
to exhibit helping behavior. Empirically, Dirks and Ferrin’s (2002) meta-analytic study provides some indirect
support to this assertion, as cognition-based trust is significantly related to both transformational leadership and
citizenship behavior. Extending this line of research, we examine the intervening effect of cognition-based trust
DOI: 10.1002/job
on the relationship between transformational leadership and helping behavior. We therefore propose the following
mediation hypothesis.
Hypothesis 1b: Cognition-based trust mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’
helping behavior.
The moderating role of prosocial motivation

As mentioned previously, transformational leadership may engender helping behavior through two distinctive
psychological processes, namely, affect-based trust and cognition-based trust. These two processes can be further
explained by integrating the insights gained from research on prosocial motivation. This line of research suggests that
people with high prosocial motivation tend to rely more on heuristic processing and place greater emphasis on the
interests of others, whereas those with low prosocial motivation may act in a more rational and self-interested manner
(Meglino & Korsgaard, 2004; Simon, 1993). The two processes described in prosocial motivation research appear to be
consistent with the exchange-deepening function of affect-based trust and the risk-reducing function of cognition-based
trust, respectively. As such, we extend previous research on the mediated relationships resulting from affect-based
and cognition-based trust, by examining prosocial motivation as a moderator of these relationships.
Researchers have recognized several aspects along which prosocial motivation varies (e.g., Grant & Berg, 2011;
Meglino & Korsgaard, 2004). In particular, Grant and Berg (2011) proposed that “the more extreme prosocial
motivation, the more likely it is to be governed by the ‘hot’ experiential system rather than the ‘cool’ cognitive
system” (p. 31). Here, the “hot” experiential system refers to heuristic processing characterized by emotional,
intuitive, and impulsive reactions, while the “cool” cognitive system refers to a systematic processing characterized
by deliberate, analytic, and rational reactions (Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999). Consistent with this proposition,
previous research suggests that, when engaging in prosocial behavior, people with high prosocial motivation are
apt to take a heuristic processing approach, whereby they follow social influences without giving much
consideration to personal rewards or consequences. Conversely, those with low prosocial motivation tend to place
higher value on their own interests and engage in rational processing by systematically considering the
consequences of their actions (Meglino & Korsgaard, 2004, 2006; Simon, 1990, 1993). For instance, research has found
that people with high prosocial motivation are likely to experience strong feelings of social responsibility and reciprocity
norms, thus influencing their tendency to exhibit prosocial behavior (De Cremer & van Lange, 2001).
Korsgaard, Meglino, Lester, and Jeong (2010) used a similar perspective in their recent examination of how other
orientation moderates the relative impact of reciprocal obligation and expected reciprocity on helping behavior. The
construct of other orientation is conceptually similar to prosocial motivation, in that it refers to “the extent to which
employees value and experience concern for the well-being of other people” (Grant & Wrzesniewski, 2010, p. 109).
Through a series of three experimental studies, Korsgaard et al. (2010) showed that persons with high other orientation,
who tend to rely on social norms to guide actions, were more likely to adopt and act on reciprocal obligation. On
the other hand, because they tend to act in a rational and self-interested manner, the helping behavior of persons
with low other orientation is more likely to be predicted by their expectation of personal returns. The studies of
Korsgaard et al. (2010) thus provide corroborating evidence that other orientation moderates the extent to which
reciprocal obligation and expected reciprocity influence helping behavior. In the following paragraphs, we extend
this rationale to propose prosocial motivation as a moderator of the relationships between affect-based and
cognition-based trust and helping behavior.
Affect-based trust moderated by prosocial motivation

The different processes described in prosocial motivation literature provide useful insights into the potential
moderating effects of prosocial motivation. As noted previously, affect-based trust represents a deepened social
DOI: 10.1002/job
exchange relationship, where followers feel an obligation to reciprocate to leaders and organizations in the form of
emotional attachments and helping behavior. Because the reciprocal norm is supposed to be a universal norm that
has evolved through natural selection (Gouldner, 1960), followers’ reciprocal actions are likely to be governed by
heuristic processing in a social exchange relationship (Blau, 1964). Viewed through the lens of prosocial motivation
research, the extent to which affect-based trust influences helping behavior may vary as a function of prosocial
motivation. Specifically, because they are willing to accept and act on social norms, followers with high prosocial
motivation are more likely to conform to the reciprocity norm embedded in affect-based trust. Also, followers in a
social exchange do not seek immediate personal benefits (Molm, 2003). These behaviors are congruent with the
goals held by those people with high prosocial motivation who aim to benefit others (Grant & Berry, 2011).
In contrast, given their reliance on rational cognitive processes, followers with low prosocial motivation are less
likely to conform to the norm of reciprocation inherent in affect-based trust (Korsgaard et al., 2010). Instead, they
are likely to be motivated to perform helping behavior in order to receive future benefits, regardless of others’
interests (Korsgaard et al., 2010). This motivation appears to be less responsive to the genuine sense of caring
and concern inherent in affect-based trust (McAllister, 1995). Thus, from a rational, self-interest perspective, it
makes sense that affect-based trust would have a weak impact on helping behavior among followers with low
prosocial motivation. In light of these theoretical explanations, the following hypothesis is proposed.
Hypothesis 2a: Prosocial motivation moderates the relationship between affect-based trust and helping behavior,
such that the positive relationship between affect-based trust and helping behavior will be stronger among
followers with high prosocial motivation.
Cognition-based trust moderated by prosocial motivation

In the process of helping others, cognition-based trust reduces followers’ perceived risk of potential exploitation,
because it sends out signals about leaders’ ability, reliability, and integrity to safeguard followers’ interests and
provide them with valued personal benefits (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Mayer et al., 1995). We predict that the impact
of cognition-based trust on helping behavior may also vary across different levels of prosocial motivation. Because
people with low prosocial motivation are generally concerned about self-interests, they are likely to engage in
helping behavior when having regard for personal consequences (Lester, Meglino, & Korsgaard, 2008). Moreover,
followers with low prosocial motivation tend to deliberatively consider information about their leaders and evaluate
the personal consequences of any risk-taking behavior (e.g., helping behavior) in a hierarchical relationship
(Meglino & Korsgaard, 2004, 2006). This implies that followers with low prosocial motivation are likely to utilize
cognition-based trust as a valuable cue for reducing perceived risk and building a sense of confidence that leaders
will recognize their citizenship behavior, including helping behavior.
Conversely, because they are more concerned with the welfare of other people, individuals with high prosocial
motivation are less motivated by self-interest to enact helping behavior (Grant & Wrzesniewski, 2010; Korsgaard,
Meglino, & Lester, 1996; Lester et al., 2008; Meglino & Korsgaard, 2004). In an experimental study, Korsgaard
et al. (2010) observed that the expectation that a helpful act will produce positive future returns was a weak motivator
of helping behavior among people with high other orientation, which is conceptually similar to prosocial motivation.
Also, Grant and Mayer (2009) noted that prosocially motivated people are willing to subordinate their own interests in
order to benefit others. These findings suggest that, from a motivational perspective, followers with high prosocial
motivation should be less responsive to cognition-based trust that signals personal recognition from the leaders.
Furthermore, given their reliance on social norms and influences, people with high prosocial motivation invest less
time and effort in evaluating the consequences of their actions (Grant & Wrzesniewski, 2010; Meglino & Korsgaard,
2004). This implies that they are less likely to use cognition-based trust as a risk reducer to weigh their personal
consequences before enacting helping behavior. For these reasons, we propose the following hypothesis.
Hypothesis 2b: Prosocial motivation moderates the relationship between cognition-based trust and helping
behavior, such that the positive relationship between cognition-based trust and helping behavior will be stronger
among followers with low prosocial motivation.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Moderated mediation hypotheses

In the examination of Hypotheses 1 and 2, it is possible that prosocial motivation will influence the strength of the
indirect relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ helping behavior, as depicted in Figure 1.
Specifically, high prosocial motivation, owing to its greater reliance on social influences, holds the potential to
enhance the mediating role of affect-based trust in the relationship between transformational leadership and helping
behavior. That is, followers with high prosocial motivation are more willing to discharge the obligation embedded in
affect-based trust and reciprocate transformational leaders’ care and concern in the form of helping behavior.
Moreover, because of it being more relevant to rational and self-interested processing, low prosocial motivation
may strengthen the indirect effect of transformational leadership on helping behavior, through cognition-based
trust. Followers with low prosocial motivation may be more responsive to cognition-based trust that provides
a sense of confidence in transformational leaders’ future decisions (i.e., their recognition of citizenship behaviors)
by engaging in helping behavior. Given these reasons, we further propose the following moderated
mediation hypotheses.
Hypothesis 3a: Prosocial motivation moderates the strength of the mediated relationship between transformational
leadership and followers’ helping behavior through affect-based trust, such that the mediated relationship is
stronger under high prosocial motivation than under low prosocial motivation.
Hypothesis 3b: Prosocial motivation moderates the strength of the mediated relationship between transformational
leadership and followers’ helping behavior through cognition-based trust, such that the mediated relationship is
stronger under low prosocial motivation than under high prosocial motivation.
Method
Sample and procedure
Survey questionnaires were distributed among sales employees of four private retail companies and among
servicing employees of five manufacturing companies located in a major city in Southeast China. Separate
questionnaires with a cover letter that guaranteed confidentiality were devised and distributed to followers
and their supervisors on-site by the first author. Followers responded to survey questions on transformational
leadership, affect-based trust, cognition-based trust, and prosocial motivation. Followers’ immediate supervisors
evaluated their helping behavior.
To match followers’ responses with those of their supervisors, followers were asked to write down their names as
part of demographic information; supervisors, for their part, were required to indicate the name of each rated
follower. More importantly, when receiving questionnaires, both followers and supervisors were instructed that
completed surveys should be returned in sealed envelopes directly to the first author to ensure confidentiality
of responses.
The final sample consisted of 140 sales employees and 63 supervisors in the retail companies and 208 service
employees and 63 supervisors in the manufacturing companies. The response rate was 69.6 percent. Fifty-one percent
(64) of the supervisors rated one subordinate, and 49 percent (62) rated more than one subordinate (M = 4.6, SD = 3.2).
Of the 348 employees, the average age was 32 years, and 38.2 percent were male. In terms of education, 8.6 percent had
middle school education, 42.8 percent had high school diplomas, 33.3 percent had technical college or vocational
degrees, and 14.3 percent had undergraduate or graduate degrees. In terms of tenure with the leader, 41.4 percent
had worked with their supervisors for less than one year, 39.9 percent for one to three years, 16.4 percent for four to
six years, and 2.3 percent for seven or more years.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Measures
Chinese versions of all measures were created by following the commonly used translation–back-translation
procedure (Brislin, 1980). These measures are briefly described in the following sections.
Transformational leadership
Transformational leadership was measured using 20 items from Avolio and Bass’s (2002) Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire Form 5x-Short. Its dimensions include the following: (i) idealized influence (e.g., “Goes beyond
his/her own self-interest for the good of the group”); (ii) inspirational leadership (e.g., “Articulates a compelling
vision of the future”); (iii) intellectual stimulation (e.g., “Seeks differing perspectives when solving problems”);
and (iv) individualized consideration (e.g., “Treats each of us as individuals with different needs, abilities, and
aspirations”). Participants were asked to indicate the leadership behavior of their immediate supervisors on a 5-point
Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = not at all to 5 = frequently if not always.
We conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using structural equation modeling (AMOS 18.0) to
test whether the four-factor model with an overall second-order factor fitted the data. The results showed that
the fit indices were within an acceptable range (χ 2(166) = 366.61, CFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.92, RMSEA = 0.06; 20
items, α = .92).
Affect-based and cognition-based trust

Affect-based and cognition-based trust scales were adapted from McAllister’s (1995) study. Five items (α = .85)
were used to measure affect-based trust (e.g., “My leader and I have a sharing relationship. We can both freely share
our ideas, feelings, and hopes”). Five items (α = .80) were used to measure cognition-based trust (e.g., “My leader
approaches his/her job with professionalism and dedication”). Participants responded on a 5-point Likert-type scale
ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. The results of a CFA on the 10 items supported the notion
that affect-based and cognition-based trust represent two distinct dimensions of trust. Specifically, a two-factor
model (χ 2(34) = 113.78, CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.08) had a better fit with the data than a one-factor
model (χ 2(35) = 183.25, CFI = 0.91, TLI = 0.88, RMSEA = 0.11).
Prosocial motivation
Grant and Sumanth’s (2009) five-item scale (α = .88) was used to assess employees’ prosocial motivation
(e.g., “I get energized by working on tasks that have the potential to benefit others”). Participants responded on a
7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree.
Helping behavior
Supervisors rated their followers’ helping behavior using seven items (α = .91) from Podsakoff, Ahearne, and
MacKenzie’s (1997) scale (e.g., “Help each other out if someone falls behind in his/her work” and
“Encourage each other when someone is down”). These items tap into followers’ helping behavior that is
targeted at coworkers. Participants responded on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree
to 7 = strongly agree.
Control variables
Consistent with previous research (e.g., Kamdar & Van Dyne, 2007; Yang & Mossholder, 2010), we con-
trolled for the possible confounding effects of employee age, gender, education, industry, and tenure with
the leader on trust and helping behavior. Both age and gender were statistically controlled, because there is
evidence to show that trust likely increases with one’s age (Sutter & Kocher, 2007) and that women generally
score higher on trust than men do (Orbell, Dawes, & Schwartz-Shea, 1994). In addition, it has been found that
education is related to both trust (Yang & Mossholder, 2010) and helping behavior (Van Dyne & LePine,
1998) and that industry also may have an impact on trust, given that sales employees in the retail industry
DOI: 10.1002/job
appear to have less interaction with leaders in their jobs than do service employees in the manufacturing
industry (MacKenzie et al., 2001). Finally, tenure with the leader was included as a control variable because
the length of time employees have worked with their leaders is likely to affect trust (Becerra & Gupta, 2003).
Results
Confirmatory factor analysis
Using a multigroup CFA, we tested the equivalence of measurement models between subsamples of sales employees
in retail companies and servicing employees in manufacturing companies across all four self-report measures. Four
dimensions of transformational leadership served as its indicators. The results revealed a good fit for the overall
measurement model (χ 2(292) = 572.29, CFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.05), and there was no deterioration in
fit when factor loadings were constrained to be equal across the subsamples (Δχ 2(15) = 18.11, ns).
Taking into account the results of the measurement equivalence test, we decided to combine data from the two
subsamples. Thereafter, a CFA was performed on all four self-report constructs in the study to demonstrate
construct distinctiveness. We compared a baseline model (a four-factor model consisting of transformational
leadership, affect-based and cognition-based trust, and prosocial motivation) with four alternative models. The
results presented in Table 1 show that the baseline model had a good fit (χ 2(146) = 340.54, CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.94,
RMSEA = 0.06). The results reflected a significantly worse fit for the three-factor model with affect-based and
cognition-based trust merged into a single factor (Δχ 2(3) = 75.28, p < .01), the three-factor model with the
combination of transformational leadership and cognition-based trust (Δχ 2(3) = 163.45, p < .01), the two-factor
model with the combination of transformational leadership and affect-based and cognition-based trust (Δχ 2(5) =
206.76, p < .01), and the one-factor model with the combination of all four constructs (Δχ 2(6) = 785.19, p < .01).
Hypotheses testing
Means, standard deviations, and correlations are shown in Table 2. Because followers were partially nested within
supervisors, we examined the mediation and moderation hypotheses (i.e., Hypotheses 1 and 2) using hierarchical
linear modeling (HLM6.0, Raudenbush, Bryk, & Congdon, 2004). There were no group-level variables, because
transformational leadership was rated on the basis of the perception of each follower. Following Gong, Huang,
and Farh (2009), the nesting effect was considered by allowing a random intercept. In all analyses, we first entered
the control variables of industry, age, gender, education, and tenure with the leader (Table 3). Because most of these
variables had no significant impact on trust and helping behavior, control variables are excluded from further
discussion; only variables of particular interest are discussed in the following sections.
Table 1. Comparison of measurement models.

Model Factors χ2 df Δχ 2 RMSEA CFI TLI
Baseline model Four-factor model 340.54 146 0.06 0.95 0.94

Model 1 Three-factor model: combined CT and AT 415.82 149 75.28** 0.07 0.93 0.92
Model 2 Three-factor model: combined TFL and CT 503.99 149 163.45** 0.08 0.90 0.89
Model 3 Two-factor model: combined CT, AT, and TFL 547.30 151 206.76** 0.09 0.89 0.88
Model 4 One-factor model: combined all four constructs 1125.73 152 785.19** 0.14 0.74 0.70
Note: TFL, transformational leadership; CT, cognition-based trust; AT, affect-based trust.
**p < .01.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Table 2. Means, standard deviations, and correlations.

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5
1. Transformational leadership 3.17 0.48 (.92)

2. Affect-based trust 3.73 0.67 .67** (.85)
3. Cognition-based trust 3.75 0.64 .72** .68** (.80)
4. Prosocial motivation 5.69 0.92 .46** .47** .49** (.88)
5. Helping behavior 5.13 0.88 .29** .28** .30** .29** (.91)
Note: N = 348. Internal consistency reliabilities appear in parentheses along the diagonal.
**p < .01.
Table 3. Results of hierarchical linear model for mediation on helping behavior.

Criterion variables
Affect-based trust Cognition-based trust Helping behavior
Predictor variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Controls
Gendera 0.00 (0.05) 0.04 (0.05) 0.04 (0.08) 0.05 (0.08)
Age 0.01 (0.004) 0.00 (0.003) 0.00 (0.01) 0.00 (0.01)
Industryb 0.01 (0.05) 0.16* (0.06) 0.10 (0.14) 0.15 (0.14)
Education 0.05 (0.03) 0.09** (0.03) 0.01 (0.05) 0.04 (0.05)
Tenure with the leader 0.03 (0.03) 0.01 (0.03) 0.02 (0.07) 0.01 (0.07)
Direct effects
Transformational leadership 0.91** (0.06) 0.90** (0.06) 0.37** (0.08) 0.05 (0.13)
Mediating effects
Affect-based trust 0.19* (0.09)
Cognition-based trust 0.18* (0.09)
Model deviation 527.41 413.27 815.96 809.10
Note: N = 348. In all models, gamma coefficients are presented, and the corresponding standard errors are reported in parentheses.
a
0 = male, 1 = female.
b
0 = manufacturing industry, 1 = retail industry.
*p < .05,
**p < .01.
Mediation hypotheses
We followed Baron and Kenny’s (1986) procedure to test the mediating effects of affect-based and cognition-based
trust in the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ helping behavior, and the full results are
presented in Table 3. First, transformational leadership was positively related to both affect-based trust (γ = 0.91,
p < .01, Model 1) and cognition-based trust (γ = 0.90, p < .01, Model 2). Second, transformational leadership
was positively related to followers’ helping behavior (γ = 0.37, p < .01, Model 3). Third, when the effects of
affect-based and cognition-based trust and transformational leadership were considered together (Model 4),
transformational leadership (γ = 0.05, ns) was nonsignificant, but both affect-based trust (γ = 0.19, p < .05) and
cognition-based trust (γ = 0.18, p < .05) were significant.
To further test the mediation hypotheses (i.e., Hypotheses 1a and 1b), we performed the Sobel test, which
provides a direct test for the indirect effect of an independent variable on the dependent variable through the
mediator (MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002; Sobel, 1982). The results showed that the
indirect effects of transformational leadership on helping behavior were significant both through affect-based trust
(Z = 2.09, p < .05) and cognition-based trust (Z = 1.98, p < .05). Taken together, the results provided support for
DOI: 10.1002/job
Table 4. Results of hierarchical linear model for moderation by prosocial motivation.

Predictor variables Helping behavior
Controls
Gendera 0.08 (0.07)
Age 0.00 (0.01)
Industryb 0.10 (0.14)
Education 0.07 (0.05)
Tenure with the leader 0.01 (0.06)
Transformational leadership 0.00 (0.13)
Main effects
Affect-based trust 0.14 (0.09)
Cognition-based trust 0.18* (0.09)
Prosocial motivation 0.12* (0.05)
Moderating effects
Affect-based trust × Prosocial motivation 0.24** (0.07)
Cognition-based trust × Prosocial motivation 0.16* (0.08)
Model deviation 809.62
Note: N = 348. Gamma coefficients are presented, and the corresponding standard errors are reported in parentheses.
a
0 = male, 1 = female.
b
0 = manufacturing industry, 1 = retail industry.
*p < .05,
**p < .01.
Hypotheses 1a and 1b that affect-based and cognition-based trust mediate the relationship between transformational
leadership and followers’ helping behavior.
Moderated mediation hypotheses

To test the moderation hypotheses, a moderated regression analysis was conducted. Following Aiken and West
(1991), the variables used in the interaction terms were centered to reduce nonessential multicollinearity. Table 4
presents the results for Hypotheses 2a and 2b. Hypothesis 2a predicted that the positive relationships between
affect-based trust and helping behavior would be stronger for followers with high prosocial motivation. Results
indicated that the interaction term involving affect-based trust and prosocial motivation was significantly related
Figure 2. Interaction effect of affect-based trust and prosocial motivation on helping behavior
DOI: 10.1002/job
Figure 3. Interaction effect of cognition-based trust and prosocial motivation on helping behavior
to helping behavior (γ = 0.24, p < .01). To interpret the moderated effects, we calculated regression equations for the
relationships between affect-based trust and helping behavior at high and low levels of prosocial motivation.
Following Cohen and Cohen (1983), we defined the high and low values as plus and minus one standard deviation
from the mean. Consistent with our expectation, the relationship between affect-based trust and helping behavior
(Figure 2) was stronger for followers with high prosocial motivation (simple slope = 0.36, p < .01) than for those
with low prosocial motivation (simple slope = 0.07, ns). These results support Hypothesis 2a.
Hypothesis 2b predicted that the positive relationships between cognition-based trust and helping behavior
would be stronger for followers with low prosocial motivation. Results showed that the interaction terms involving
cognition-based trust and prosocial motivation were significantly related to helping behavior (γ = 0.16, p < .05).
We plotted simple slopes to examine the form of these interaction effects. As shown in Figure 3, the relationship
between cognition-based trust and helping behavior was stronger for followers with low prosocial motivation
Table 5. Moderated mediation results for affect-based and cognition-based trust across levels of prosocial motivation.
Moderator: Helping behavior
prosocial
Mediator motivation Conditional indirect effect SE Z p
Affect-based trust
Normal distribution Low ( 1 SD) 0.04 0.07 0.50 0.61
High (+1 SD) 0.19 0.08 2.52 0.01
Affect-based trust
Bootstrap method Low ( 1 SD) 0.04 0.07 0.50 0.61
High (+1 SD) 0.19 0.08 2.52 0.01
Cognition-based trust
Normal distribution Low ( 1 SD) 0.25 0.10 2.41 0.02
High (+1 SD) 0.03 0.09 0.29 0.77
Cognition-based trust
Bootstrap method Low ( 1 SD) 0.25 0.10 2.41 0.02
High (+1 SD) 0.03 0.09 0.29 0.77
Note: Bootstrap sample size = 5000.
DOI: 10.1002/job
(simple slope = 0.39, p < .01) than for those with high prosocial motivation (simple slope = 0.04, ns). These
results support Hypothesis 2b.
Finally, Hypotheses 3a and 3b further predicted that the strength of indirect effects through affect-based and
cognition-based trust is conditional on prosocial motivation. To assess such moderated mediation, we employed
a procedure developed by Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes (2007). Following their recommendation, we
operationalized high and low prosocial motivation as one standard deviation above and below the mean score
(see Table 5 for all relevant statistics). Results show that, for affect-based trust, the conditional indirect effects of
transformational leadership on helping behavior were stronger and significant for followers with high prosocial
motivation (normal distribution = 0.19, p < .05; bootstrap method = 0.19, p < .05) but were not significant for
followers with low prosocial motivation (normal distribution = 0.04, ns; bootstrap method = 0.04, ns). In
contrast, for cognition-based trust, the conditional indirect effects of transformational leadership on helping behavior
were stronger and significant for followers with low prosocial motivation (normal distribution = 0.25, p < .05;
bootstrap method = 0.25, p < .05) but were not significant for followers with high prosocial motivation
(normal distribution = 0.03, ns; bootstrap method = 0.03, ns). Thus, Hypotheses 3a and 3b were supported.
Discussion
The findings of this study indicated that both affect-based and cognition-based trust mediated the relationship
between transformational leadership and followers’ helping behavior. Furthermore, the effects of affect-based
and cognition-based trust on helping behavior were found to vary across different levels of prosocial motivation.
Affect-based trust was positively associated with helping behavior only for followers with high prosocial
motivation, whereas cognition-based trust was positively associated with helping behavior only for followers with
low prosocial motivation. Results also indicated that the mediated relationships between transformational
leadership and follower helping behavior through affect-based trust were stronger under high prosocial motivation,
whereas the mediated relationships through cognition-based trust were stronger under low prosocial motivation.
The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed in the following.
Theoretical and practical implications

Our findings provide a fuller understanding of the psychological processes through which transformational leaders
exert their influence on followers by adopting a nuanced view of trust. On the one hand, the mediating role of
affect-based trust implies a social exchange mechanism in explaining the effects of transformational leadership
on helping behavior (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Schaubroeck et al., 2011). Followers exposed to transformational
leaders receive the leaders’ care and concern, develop emotional attachment, and embrace the obligation to respond
to leaders by exhibiting helping behavior towards coworkers (Li & Hung, 2009; Song, Tsui, & Law, 2009). On the
other hand, our findings show that cognition-based trust characterized as a risk reducer (Colquitt et al., 2012; Dirks
& Ferrin, 2002) is required to more fully explain why trust serves as a mediator of transformational leadership
effectiveness. Followers draw inferences about transformational leaders’ characteristics, such as ability, reliability
and integrity, and form cognition-based trust. They may feel more comfortable engaging in helping behavior,
having confidence that leaders will recognize them for their citizenship behaviors appropriately rather than exploit
them (Mayer et al., 1995). These findings therefore highlight the value of examining trust as a multidimensional
construct and positing two distinctive underlying mechanisms, that is, social exchange and risk reduction, to
explain the effect of transformational leadership on followers’ helping behavior.
Our findings reinforce Avolio and Yammarino’s (2002) suggestion that transformational leadership scholars
should have an explicit consideration of contingent variables in their theorizing. Specifically, our findings indicated
that prosocial motivation serves as an important boundary condition for the mediated relationships between
transformational leadership and helping behavior through affect-based trust. Our research thus extends previous
studies by indicating that a trust-related social exchange process (Howell & Hall-Merenda, 1999; Li & Hung,
DOI: 10.1002/job
2009; Pillai et al., 1999; Wang et al., 2005) may be responsible for explaining the effect of transformational
leadership on helping behavior only for some followers (i.e., those with high prosocial motivation). Followers
who are highly prosocially motivated are more likely to reciprocate care and concern embedded in affect-based trust
by exhibiting helping behavior, whereas those with low prosocial motivation rationally assess their behavioral
consequences and are less likely to follow the reciprocal norm (Grant & Berg, 2011; Meglino & Korsgaard,
2004). It is suggested that continued attention be given to any other moderators of the social exchange mechanism
in order to further explore how transformational leaders exert their influence on followers.
Furthermore, our study shows that the mediated relationship between transformational leadership and follower
helping behavior through cognition-based trust is stronger for followers with low prosocial motivation. In line with
Dirks and Ferrin’s (2002) theorizing, cognition-based trust in the leader reduces followers’ perception of risk in a
hierarchical relationship and gives them a sense of confidence that they will be recognized for their citizenship
behavior. Viewed through the lens of prosocial motivation research, this process appears to be more salient for
followers with low prosocial motivation, because they are more likely to be motivated by self-interest to engage
in helping behavior towards coworkers (Grant & Wrzesniewski, 2010; Korsgaard et al., 2010; Meglino &
Korsgaard, 2004). As such, this finding identifies a new boundary condition (i.e., low prosocial motivation) that
explains how transformational leadership influences followers’ helping behavior, particularly through cognition-based
trust. Our moderated mediation findings thereby illustrate the value of integrating multiple lines of research (i.e., trust
and prosocial motivation) when examining transformational leadership processes.
In addition to leadership theorizing, our findings also have implications with regard to research on trust in
leadership. We open a fresh window on the distinction between affect-based and cognition-based trust, by
highlighting their differing patterns of interaction with prosocial motivation. In the past, researchers have made
significant theoretical progress in explicating the qualitative differences between affect-based and cognition-based
trust (e.g., Lewicki, Tomlinson, & Gillespie, 2006; Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998). Previous studies
have examined this issue by assessing the relative importance of each type of trust on work outcomes, on the basis
of regression coefficients (e.g., Yang & Mossholder, 2010). Our study goes a step further by showing that affect-based
trust drives helping behavior for people with high prosocial motivation, whereas cognition-based trust appears to be
more effective for those with low prosocial motivation. Taken together, these findings suggest that distinctions between
the two kinds of trust and their boundary conditions do provide leverage for understanding how trust can be promoted
and how it may operate in influencing a particular work outcome.
From a practitioner’s perspective, our findings suggest that leaders should be aware of the importance of affect-based
and cognition-based trust, which can both boost followers’ helping behavior. As such, trust-enhancing strategies
should be part of leadership development programs. Previous studies have recognized some strategies that can
promote trust (e.g., Abrams, Cross, Lesser, & Levin, 2003; Thomas, Zolin, & Hartman, 2009). For instance, leaders
may set clear goals and let followers know how and why personnel rules are applied. These actions can improve
followers’ perceptions of leaders’ reliability and competence. Additionally, leaders’ actions such as sharing personal
experiences with their followers are more relevant to enhancing followers’ affect-based trust (Abrams et al., 2003).
Thus, the effectiveness of leadership programs aimed at fostering affect-based and cognition-based trust can be
enhanced by incorporating these trust-enhancing strategies.
Moreover, our findings suggest that leaders can use multiple strategies for stimulating followers’ helping
behavior, on the basis of their individual level of prosocial motivation. Because followers with high prosocial
motivation are apt to endorse the reciprocity norm, leaders who focus on personal relationships with followers
can be more effective in promoting the helping behavior of those particular followers. They may also adopt certain
socialization practices (Grant, 2007, 2008) to cultivate employees’ prosocial motivation. For example, relational
architecture of jobs is thought to shape prosocial motivation, because it provides employees with opportunities
to benefit others (Grant, 2007). Alternatively, highlighting the positive consequences of helping behavior and mak-
ing it more salient to followers with low prosocial motivation may prove to be a more beneficial strategy. From a
character-based perspective, leaders can focus their energies on creating a professional and trustworthy image, one
that sends out a clear signal to followers that their prosocial behavior will be recognized in the future.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Limitations and future directions

Some limitations of this research are acknowledged here. First, the cross-sectional nature of our study did not allow
us to determine the direction of causality. For example, followers with high trust in the leader may inflate scores on
the transformational leadership scale, and therefore, future research with longitudinal or experimental designs
should be conducted.
Second, survey data collected from followers on different constructs at a single point in time may have led to
common-method bias in this study. Although the results of the CFA demonstrated the distinctiveness of variables,
we cannot completely rule out the presence of common-method variance. In particular, common-method bias could
result in the high correlations between our predictors, especially with regard to affect-based and cognition-based trust.
Fortunately, all of the variance inflation factor scores were below 3, suggesting that multicollinearity was not a serious
problem in this analysis (O’Brien, 2007). Further, several researchers (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012;
Siemsen, Roth, & Oliveira, 2010) have demonstrated that significance of interaction effects cannot be due to
common-method variance, suggesting that our moderating effects are not its resulting artifacts. Even so, we suggest that
future research may better deal with the issue of common-method bias by collecting data on transformational leadership,
trust, and prosocial motivation at different points in time (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003).
Third, we were not able to directly examine our explanations of mediation and moderation hypotheses. For instance,
our theoretical arguments rest on the assumption that followers with affect-based trust are likely to discharge their
obligation of reciprocity, whereas followers with cognition-based trust may feel confident in leaders’ decisions and actions
when engaging in helping behavior. Moreover, we assumed that people with high prosocial motivation tend to follow
reciprocal norms inherent in affect-based trust, whereas those with low prosocial motivation are more likely to recognize
the future personal benefits assured by cognition-based trust. We suggest that future research may measure and test the
possible explanatory mechanisms directly, so as to better understand the transformational leadership processes.
Fourth, our findings are limited to one kind of work outcome—helping behavior towards coworkers. Future
research may examine a broader range of work behavior, including those types of citizenship behavior that
challenge the status quo. For instance, certain types of citizenship behavior, such as voicing problems and taking
charge, aim at changing the status quo, which may harm the employees’ reputation by threatening supervisors
and coworkers (Grant & Mayer, 2009; Van Dyne, Cummings, & McLean Parks, 1995). Whether the role of
affect-based and cognition-based trust in the relationships between transformational leadership and unconventional
citizenship behavior is any different needs to be examined both theoretically and empirically.
Finally, our study is subject to the constraints of the study context. For instance, given the important role of
guanxi (a dyadic relationship that is based on implicitly mutual interest and benefit and that combines affective
closeness and instrumental concerns) in China (Yang, 1994), researchers have found that affect-based and
cognition-based trust are more intertwined for the Chinese than for the Americans (Chua, Morris, & Ingram,
2009). Comparative studies across different cultural contexts are needed if researchers want to further understand
the roles of affect-based and cognition-based trust in transformational leadership processes.
Conclusion
This study contributes to the transformational leadership literature by integrating research on trust in leaders and
prosocial motivation. It underscores the importance of considering trust as a multidimensional construct, because
both affect-based and cognition-based trust mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and
helping behavior towards coworkers—but for different reasons. In the mediated relationships, affect-based trust
appears to serve as an exchange-deepening mechanism, whereas cognition-based trust appears to serve as a risk-
reducing mechanism. In addition, the results point to prosocial motivation as an important boundary condition—
the effect of transformational leadership on followers’ helping behavior towards coworkers via affect-based trust
is limited to followers with high prosocial motivation, whereas via cognition-based trust, it is limited to followers
DOI: 10.1002/job
with low prosocial motivation. Management practitioners may therefore find it advantageous to take into account the
differential effects of trust and prosocial motivation when developing leadership programs and promoting followers’
helping behavior.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Dean Tjosv\old and the three anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions.
Author biographies
Yue Zhu is a lecturer of Human Resource Management at Zhejiang Gongshang University, China. She received her
Ph.D. in management from the City University of Hong Kong. Her research interests include leadership, trust, and
prosocial motivation.
Syed Akhtar is an Associate Professor in the Department of Management at City University of Hong Kong. He re-
ceived his M.A. in psychology from the University of Delhi and Ph.D. from the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT),
Delhi. His research interests include strategic human resource management, organizational commitment, leadership,
and employee well-being.
References
Abrams, L. C., Cross, R., Lesser, E., & Levin, D. Z. (2003). Nurturing interpersonal trust in knowledge-sharing networks. The
Academy of Management Executive, 17, 64–77. DOI:10.5465/AME.2003.11851845
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., & Chen, Z. X. (2002). Trust as a mediator of the relationship between organizational justice and work
outcomes: Test of a social exchange model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 267–285. DOI:10.1002/job.138
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2002). Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Form 5X). Redwood City, CA: Sage.
Avolio, B. J., & Yammarino, F. J. (2002). Introduction to, and overview of, transformational and charismatic leadership. In B. J.
Avolio & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead (pp. xvii–xxiii). Oxford,
UK: Elsevier Science.
Barling, J., Christie, A., & Hoption, C. (2010). Leadership. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational
psychology (pp. 183–240). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
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. DOI:10.1037/0022-
3514.51.6.1173
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 8, 9–32. DOI:10.1080/135943299398410
Basu, R., & Green, S. G. (1997). Leader–member exchange and transformational leadership: An empirical examination of innovative
behaviors in leader–member dyads. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 477–499. DOI:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1997.tb00643.x
Becerra, M., & Gupta, A. K. (2003). Perceived trustworthiness within the organization: The moderating impact of communication
frequency on trustor and trustee effects. Organization Science, 14, 32–44. DOI:10.1287/orsc.14.1.32.12815
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Jossey-Bass.
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In H. C. Triandis & W. W. Lambert (Eds.),
Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 349–444). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Chua, R. Y. J., Ingram, P., & Morris, M. W. (2008). From the head and the heart: Locating cognition- and affect-based trust in
managers’ professional networks. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 436–452. DOI:10.5465/AMJ.2008.32625956
Chua, R. Y. J., Morris, M. W., & Ingram, P. (2009). Guanxi vs networking: Distinctive configurations of affect- and cognition-based
trust in the networks of Chinese vs American managers. Journal of International Business Studies, 40, 490–508. DOI:10.1057/pal-
grave.jibs.8400422
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analyses for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Zapata, C. P., & Rich, B. L. (2012). Explaining the justice–performance relationship:
Trust as exchange deepener or trust as uncertainty reducer?. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 1–15. DOI:10.1037/a0025208
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their
unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 909–927. DOI:10.1037/
0021-9010.92.4.909
De Cremer, D., & van Lange, P. A. M. (2001). Why prosocials exhibit greater cooperation than proselfs: The roles of social
responsibility and reciprocity. European Journal of Personality, 15, 5–18. DOI:10.1002/per.418
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings. Organizational Science, 12, 450–467.
DOI:10.1287/orsc.12.4.450.10640
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. DOI:10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.611
Dirks, K. T., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2004). Trust in leaders: Existing research and emerging issues. In R. M. Kramer & K. S. Cook
(Eds.), Trust and distrust in organizations: Dilemmas and approaches (pp. 21–40). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Dirks, K. T., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2009). The relationship between being perceived as trustworthy by coworkers and individual
performance. Journal of Management, 35, 136–157. DOI:10.1177/0149206308321545
Farh, J., Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1990). Accounting for organizational citizenship behavior: Leader fairness and task
scope versus satisfaction. Journal of Management, 16, 705–722. DOI:10.1177/014920639001600404
Gong, Y., Huang, J., & Farh, J. (2009). Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity: The
mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 765–778. DOI:10.5465/AMJ.2009.43670890
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178.
DOI:10.2307/2092623
Grant, A. M. (2007). Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference. Academy of Management Review,
32, 393–417. DOI:10.5465/AMR.2007.24351328
Grant, A. M. (2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence,
performance, and productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 48–58. DOI:10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.48
Grant, A. M., & Berg, J. M. (2011). Prosocial motivation at work: When, why, and how making a difference makes difference. In K.
Cameron & G. Spreitzer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship (pp. 28–44). Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Grant, A. M., & Berry, J. W. (2011). The necessity of others is the mother of invention: Intrinsic and prosocial motivations,
perspective taking, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 73–96. DOI:10.5465/AMJ.2011.59215085
Grant, A. M., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Good soldiers and good actors: Prosocial and impression management motives as
interactive predictors of affiliative citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 900–912. DOI:10.1037/a0013770
Grant, A. M., & Sumanth, J. J. (2009). Mission possible? The performance of prosocially motivated employees depends on
manager trustworthiness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 927–944. DOI:10.1037/a0014391
Grant, A. M., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2010). I won’t let you down … or will I? Core self-evaluations, other-orientation, anticipated
guilt and gratitude, and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 108–121. DOI:10.1037/a0017974
Howell, J. M., & Hall-Merenda, K. E. (1999). The ties that bind: The impact of leader–member exchange, transformational leadership
and transactional leadership, and distance on predicting follower performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 680–694.
DOI:10.1037/0021-9010.84.5.680
Hui, C., Lam, S. S. K., & Law, K. K. S. (2000). Instrumental values of organizational citizenship behavior for promotion: A field
quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 822–828. DOI:10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.822
Kamdar, D., & Van Dyne, L. (2007). The joint effects of personality and workplace social exchange relationship in predicting task
performance and citizenship performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1286–1298. DOI:10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1286
Kark, R., & Shamir, B. (2002). The dual effect of transformational leadership: Priming relational and collective selves and further
effects on followers. In B. J. Avolio & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead
(pp. 67–91). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
Kirkman, B. L., Chen, G., Farh, J., Chen, Z. X., & Lowe, K. B. (2009). Individual power distance orientation and follower
reactions to transformational leaders: A cross-level, cross-cultural examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52,
744–764. DOI:10.5465/AMJ.2009.43669971
Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 37,
656–669. DOI:10.2307/256704
Korsgaard, M. A., Brodt, S. E., & Whitener, E. M. (2002). Trust in the face of conflict: The role of managerial trustworthy
behavior and organizational context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 312–319. DOI:10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.312
Korsgaard, M. A., Meglino, B. M., & Lester, S. W. (1996). The effect of other-oriented values on decision making: A test of
propositions of a theory of concern for others in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
68, 234–245. DOI:10.1006/obhd.1996.0102
DOI: 10.1002/job
Korsgaard, M. A., Meglino, B. M., Lester, S. W., & Jeong, S. S. (2010). Paying you back or paying me forward: Understanding
rewarded and unrewarded organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 277–290. DOI:10.1037/
a0018137
Lapidot, Y., Kark, R., & Shamir, B. (2007). The impact of situational vulnerability on the development and erosion of followers’
trust in their leader. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 16–34. DOI:10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.11.004
Lester, S. E., Meglino, B. M., & Korsgaard, M. A. (2008). The role of other orientation in organizational citizenship behavior.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 829–841. DOI:10.1002/job.504
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. DOI:10.1177/0149206306294405
Li, C., & Hung, C. (2009). The influence of transformational leadership on workplace relationships and job performance. Social
Behavior and Personality, 37, 1129–1142. DOI:10.2224/sbp.2009.37.8.1129
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, 75, 167–203. DOI:10.1006/
obhd.1999.2832
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1991). Organizational citizenship behavior and objective productivity as
determinants of managerial evaluations of salespersons’ performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes 50, 123–150. DOI:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90037-T
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Rich, G. A. (2001). Transformational and transactional leadership and salesperson
performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29, 115–134. DOI:10.1177/03079459994506
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test
mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83–104. DOI:10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.83
Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing
effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 738–748.
DOI:10.2307/1556364
Mayer, R. C., & Gavin, M. B. (2005). Trust in management and performance: Who minds the shop while the employees watch
the boss. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 874–888. DOI:10.5465/AMJ.2005.18803928
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management
Review, 20, 709–734. DOI:10.2307/258792
McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations.
Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24–59. DOI: 10.2307/256727
Meglino, B. M., & Korsgaard, M. A. (2004). Considering rational self-interest as a disposition: Organizational implications of
other orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 946–959. DOI:10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.946
Meglino, B. M., & Korsgaard, M. A. (2006). Considering situational and dispositional approaches to rational self-interest: An
extension and response to De Dreu (2006). Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1253–1259. DOI:10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1253
Metcalfe, J., & Mischel, W. (1999). A hot/cool-system analysis of delay of gratification: Dynamics of willpower. Psychological
Review, 106, 3–19. DOI:10.1037/0033-295X.106.1.3
Molm, L. D. (2003). Theoretical comparisons of forms of exchange. Sociological Theory, 21, 1–17. DOI:10.1111/1467-9558.00171
Molm, L. D., Schaefer, D. R., & Collett, J. L. (2007). The value of reciprocity. Social Psychology Quarterly, 70, 199–217.
DOI:10.1177/019027250707000208
O’Brien, R. M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality and Quantity, 41, 673–690.
DOI:10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6
Orbell, J., Dawes, R., & Schwartz-Shea, P. (1994). Trust, social categories, and individuals: The case of gender. Motivation and
Emotion, 18, 109–128. DOI:10.1007/BF02249396
Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.),
Research in organizational behavior (pp. 43–72). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The mediating role of core job characteristics.
Academy of Management Journal, 49, 327–340. DOI:10.5465/AMJ.2006.20786079
Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C. A., & Williams, E. S. (1999). Fairness perceptions and trust as mediators for transforma-
tional and transactional leadership: A two-sample study. Journal of Management, 25, 897–933. DOI:10.1177/
014920639902500606
Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Impact of organizational citizenship behavior on organizational performance: A
review and suggestion for future research. Human Performance, 10, 133–151. DOI:10.1207/s15327043hup1002
Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior and quantity and quality of work
group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 262–270. DOI:10.1037/0021-9010.82.2.262
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational leader behaviors and substitute for leadership as
determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management,
22, 259–298. DOI:10.1177/014920639602200204
DOI: 10.1002/job
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A
critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. DOI:10.1037/
0021-9010.88.5.879
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on
followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107–142.
DOI:10.1016/1048-9843(90)90009-7
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical
review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 28, 513–563.
DOI:10.1177/014920630002600307
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations
on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569. DOI:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452
Poon, J. M. L. (2006). Trust-in-supervisor and helping coworkers: Moderating effect of perceived politics. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 21, 518–532. DOI:10.1108/02683940610684373
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and
prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185–227. DOI:10.1080/00273170701341316
Raudenbush, R., Bryk, T., & Congdon, R. (2004). HLM6. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.
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. DOI:10.5465/AMR.1998.926617
Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S. K., & Peng, A. C. (2011). Cognition-based and affect-based trust as mediators of leader behavior
influences on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 863–871. DOI:10.1037/a0022625
Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (2007). An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present, and future.
Academy of Management Review, 32, 344–354. DOI:10.5465/AMR.2007.24348410
Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. (1996). Social exchange in organizations: Perceived organizational support,
leader–member exchange, and employee reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 219–227. DOI:10.1037/0021-
9010.81.3.219
Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction
effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 456–476. DOI:10.1177/1094428109351241
Simon, H. A. (1990). A mechanism for social selection and successful altruism. Science, 250, 1665–1668. DOI:10.1126/
science.2270480
Simon, H. A. (1993). Altruism and economics. American Economic Review, 83, 156–161.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological
methodology (pp. 290–312). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Song, L. J., Tsui, A. S., & Law, K. S. (2009). Unpacking employee responses to organizational exchange mechanisms: The role
of social and economic exchange perceptions. Journal of Management, 35, 56–93. DOI:10.1177/0018726706064175
Sutter, M., & Kocher, M. (2007). Trust and trustworthiness across different age groups. Games and Economic Behavior, 59,
364–382. DOI:10.1016/j.geb.2006.07.006
Szulanski, G., Cappetta, R., & Jensen, R. J. (2004). When and how trustworthiness matters: Knowledge transfer and the
moderating effect of causal ambiguity. Organizational Science, 15, 600–613. DOI:10.1287/orsc.1040.0096
Tanghe, J., Wisse, B., & van der Flier, H. (2009). The role of group member affect in the relationship between trust and
cooperation. British Journal of Management, 21, 359–374. DOI:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2009.00643.x
Thomas, G. F., Zolin, R., & Hartman, J. L. (2009). The central role of communication in developing trust and its effect on
employee involvement. Journal of Business Communication, 46, 287–310. DOI:10.1177/0021943609333522
Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & McLean Parks, J. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity. In
L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 17, pp. 215–285). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity.
Academy of Management Journal, 41, 108–119. DOI:10.2307/256902
Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D. X., & Chen, Z. X. (2005). Leader–member exchange as a mediator of the
relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy
of Management Journal, 48, 420–432. DOI:10.5465/AMJ.2005.17407908
Whitener, E. M., Brodt, S. E., Korsgaard, M. A., & Werner, J. M. (1998). Managers as initiators of trust: An exchange relationship
framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behavior. Academy of Management Review, 23, 513–530. DOI:10.5465/
AMR.1998.926624
Yang, M. M. (1994). Gifts, favors and banquets: The art of social relationship in China. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Yang, J., & Mossholder, K. W. (2010). Examining the effects of trust in leaders: A bases-and-foci approach. The Leadership
Quarterly, 21, 50–63. DOI:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.10.004
Yang, J., Mossholder, K. W., & Peng, T. K. (2009). Supervisory procedural justice effects: The mediating roles of cognitive and
affective trust. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 143–154. DOI:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.01.009
DOI: 10.1002/job
Copyright of Journal of Organizational Behavior is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.

Transformational and Helping Behavior

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transformational and Helping Behavior

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav.

35, 373–392 (2014)

Received 01 June 2012

Figure 1. The proposed moderated mediation model

Theoretical Background and Hypotheses

Transformational leadership and two-dimensional trust

The mediating role of affect-based and cognition-based trust

The moderating role of prosocial motivation

Affect-based trust moderated by prosocial motivation

Cognition-based trust moderated by prosocial motivation

Moderated mediation hypotheses

Affect-based and cognition-based trust

Table 1. Comparison of measurement models.

Baseline model Four-factor model 340.54 146 0.06 0.95 0.94

Table 2. Means, standard deviations, and correlations.

1. Transformational leadership 3.17 0.48 (.92)

Table 3. Results of hierarchical linear model for mediation on helping behavior.

Affect-based trust Cognition-based trust Helping behavior

Predictor variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Table 4. Results of hierarchical linear model for moderation by prosocial motivation.

Moderated mediation hypotheses

Theoretical and practical implications

Limitations and future directions

You might also like