You are on page 1of 17

Leadership & Organization Development Journal

Emerald Article: The relationship between leadership and follower in-role performance and satisfaction with the leader: The mediating effects of empowerment and trust in the leader Timothy Bartram, Gian Casimir

Article information:
To cite this document: Timothy Bartram, Gian Casimir, (2007),"The relationship between leadership and follower in-role performance and satisfaction with the leader: The mediating effects of empowerment and trust in the leader", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 28 Iss: 1 pp. 4 - 19 Permanent link to this document: Downloaded on: 20-04-2012 References: This document contains references to 79 other documents Citations: This document has been cited by 2 other documents To copy this document: This document has been downloaded 11867 times.

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Additional help for authors is available for Emerald subscribers. Please visit for more information. About Emerald With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

and Gian Casimir Newcastle Graduate School of Business. University of Newcastle. 150 customer service operators in an Australian call-centre were invited to participate in a leadership questionnaire and informed that their performance would be rated by their immediate supervisors (i.e.The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www. Transformational leadership Paper type Research paper Leadership & Organization Development Journal Vol. Findings – Partial least squares analysis revealed that the effects of transformational leadership on the in-role performance of followers were mediated by empowerment and trust in the leader. Research limitations/implications – The implications of the findings for leadership theorists is that a more fine-grained approach is required to understand the leadership “black box” in that different mediators have been shown to affect different outcomes. which has high levels of control. Practical implications – In a call-center context. Keywords Leadership.1 4 Received October 2005 Revised February 2006 Accepted April 2006 The relationship between leadership and follower in-role performance and satisfaction with the leader The mediating effects of empowerment and trust in the leader Timothy Bartram School of Business. embrace risk.htm LODJ 28. their line manager) as part of the study. Additionally. A sample of 109 responses were used in the analysis.1108/01437730710718218 There is growing interest in the role of leaders fostering employees to take initiative. whereas the effects of transformational leadership on satisfaction were partially mediated by trust in the leader. Originality/value – This paper contributes to the literature by providing a concurrent analysis of the mediating effects of empowerment and trust in the leader on the relationship between transformational leadership and in-role performance and job satisfaction. stimulate innovation and cope with uncertainty (Spreitzer. 1. 2007 pp. Newcastle. standardization and formalization. 1995). Empowerment. transformational leadership can improve the performance of followers by empowering them and by developing trust in the leader. 28 No. the in-role performance of followers as rated by the leader and satisfaction with the leader). 4-19 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0143-7739 DOI 10. recent work on shared or distributed leadership emphasizes the importance of leaders empowering followers and accepting mutual influence to . Australia Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to provide an examination of the mediating effects of empowerment and trust in the leader on the relationship between transformational leadership and two outcomes (i. La Trobe University.e. Australia.emeraldinsight. Design/methodology/approach – In total.

behaving self-sacrificially. 1984). Transformational leadership has been defined in terms of articulating a compelling vision for followers. 1993). 1996).. as evidenced by self-sacrificial behaviors. value congruence. positive emotions experienced by followers due to increased levels of self-efficacy Leadership and follower 5 .. Trust also stems from an individual’s confidence in another party’s intentions and motives towards oneself and others (Butler and Cantrell. Credibility and integrity are also cornerstones of trust (Kouzes and Posner. and providing them with individualized consideration (Bass.g. however. 1995) as well as an expectation that the other party will reciprocate if one cooperates. has not examined the role of empowerment and trust in the leader on positive outcomes (e.g. in-role performance of followers and satisfaction with the leader) associated with leadership. 2000). 1980) or competence is essential to trust in organizational leader-follower relationships because followers are unlikely to develop trust in their leader unless they believe the leader is capable of fulfilling the leadership role (Whitener et al. Gronn. 1993). 2000).g. 2000). Pillai et al. Klein and House.g. and satisfaction (e. Perceived ability (Cook and Wall. 1995). Garcıa-Morales et al. Trust can be defined as a willingness to depend on another party (Mayer et al..e. 1988. effectiveness. Lowe et al.. 1999). 1996. 1991) and having the ability to achieve the vision. Transformational leadership has been shown consistently to be associated with trust in the leader (e. 2000.g.g. indicate that the leader is “walking the talk” and thereby builds credibility (Conger and Kanungo.. espousing and embodying shared values causes followers to identify with and admire the leader (Bennis and Nanus. Transformational leadership and trust in the leader Leaders need to be trusted by their followers because trust is the mortar that binds the follower to the leader (Nanus. the leader is held in high esteem because of capabilities or attributes) rather than from observed behaviors of the leader (Conger et al. Kouzes and Posner.g. satisfaction. 1989). Lowe et al.facilitate performance (e. It is suggested that trust is a vital antecedent of satisfaction with the leader because both stem from affective states (e. 2006). There is also a growing body of work that demonstrates the importance of trust in the leader as a mediator of leadership effects on followers. Jung and Avolio. Trust in the leader correlates positively with various outcomes such as organizational citizenship behaviors. Research on transactional leadership and transformational leadership. The empowerment of employees is vital for organizational effectiveness.. This paper contributes to the literature by providing a concurrent analysis of the mediating effects of empowerment and trust in the leader on the relationship between transformational leadership and two outcomes (i. Bass. which helps to engender trust because the leader is seen as capable of fulfilling the leadership role (Whitener et al. Jung and Avolio. Transformational leadership facilitates the development of trust in the leader for several reasons: The leader’s own determination and commitment to the vision.. in-role performance of followers as rated by the leader and satisfaction with the leader). There is considerable empirical support for transformational leadership in terms of its positive effects on followers with respect to a variety of criteria including justice. 1997. 1990. intellectually stimulating followers. admiration of the leader) and cognitive states (e. extra-role behaviors and organizational ´ learning (e.. the leader’s high level of self-confidence leads to perceptions of competence. performance. 1985. 1998). 1998) in terms of making sound decisions (Kirkpatrick and Locke.

If followers believe the leader is not genuinely concerned about their welfare. in turn. Transformational leadership facilitates the development of trust in the leader because such leadership involves showing concern for the individual needs of followers as well as behaving in ways that are consistent with espoused values (Bass. 1999.e.. Podsakoff et al.LODJ 28. and acting as a mentor and paying close attention to followers’ needs for achievement and growth (Kark and Shamir. 1985). the following hypothesis is proposed: H1a. High levels of satisfaction and performance arguably require trust in the leader. Followers need to trust the leader in order to feel positively about the leader and to exert extra effort to perform effectively. 1985) and ultimately improving their performance. Transformational leadership requires trust in the leader because of the uncertainty inherent in changing the status quo. 1997)... 2002) indicate a concern for the welfare of followers. The effects of transformational leadership on satisfaction with the leader will be mediated by trust in the leader. which is pivotal for trust. trust (Pillai et al. Trust in the leader is therefore important because it is an antecedent of risk-taking behavior (Mayer et al. 2000). 1985) as well as if they are to respond positively to intellectual stimulation. 1999). and cope with uncertainty (Laschinger et al. 2001. There is growing interest in the role of leaders in fostering employees to take initiative. Based on the above discussion. 1990). or is incompetent.. they will be unlikely to trust the leader and consequently they will be dissatisfied with the leader and not motivated to cooperate fully with the leader thereby adversely affecting their performance. H1b. 1993) and feeling that they are pursuing meaningful goals (Bennis and Nanus. embrace risk. individualized consideration (i. 2000). being concerned about the welfare of followers and attending to their individual needs) results in followers believing the leader cares about them as people rather than as means to an end. lacks integrity. .. The effects of transformational leadership on performance will be mediated by trust in the leader. the creation and facilitation of an environment based on trust between the transformational leader and followers is necessary for leadership-driven learning to occur (Taylor. Furthermore. performance and satisfaction with the leader (Jung and Avolio. confidence in the intentions and motives of the leader result in perceptions of procedural justice and. Transformational leadership and empowerment Followers need to be empowered by their leaders in order to perform optimally. Trust in the leader has been shown to be an important mediating (or intervening) variable with respect to the relationship between transformational leadership and various outcomes such as organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) (Pillai et al. stimulate innovation. Merely enacting leadership behaviors does not guarantee that followers will be satisfied or that they will be motivated to perform. Trust as a mediator of leadership effects Transformational leadership involves intellectually stimulating followers thereby encouraging them to learn new ways to do their work (Bass. followers need to trust the leader if they are to cooperate and commit fully to the leader’s vision (Bass. However..1 6 (Shamir et al. 1995).

Competence refers to self-efficacy or personal mastery in relation to one’s work. Empowerment as an enabling process affects both the initiation and the persistence of followers’ task-oriented behaviors (Bandura. Empowerment as a mediator of leadership effects Few studies have examined the mediating effects of empowerment on the relationship between transformational leadership and various outcomes such as performance and job satisfaction. Contemporary research on psychological empowerment has focused on articulating the empowerment process and the psychological underpinnings of the construct in terms of self-efficacy and autonomy (Conger and Kanungo. there are those (e. and self-determination” (Avolio et al. Beyond providing a vision. 1977). integrity. impact. 953). transformational leaders “build team spirit through their enthusiasm. transformational leadership involves providing followers with individualised consideration by attending to their higher order needs and encouraging them to take on more responsibilities in order to develop their full potential (Kark and Shamir. expectancy).. beliefs. and optimism and provide meaning and challenge to their followers’ work. high moral standards. p. meaning.e. enhancing followers’ level of self-efficacy. follower satisfaction (e. 1990). There is substantial empirical support for the relationship between empowerment and positive outcomes such as follower performance (see Spreitzer. 1995. identities. Transformational leadership alters followers’ aspirations. and self-determination. Kirkman and Rosen. Empowerment refers to a process whereby an individual’s self-efficacy is enhanced (Conger and Kanungo. 1993. Meaning refers to the importance placed on a given job based on one’s values. Argyris. and mindset by having followers re-examine the way they do things and encouraging them to try novel and creative approaches to their work (Bass and Avolio. Self-determination refers to autonomy in making decisions about one’s work (Avolio et al. 1998) who argue that empowerment is a bogus concept in that many employees do not seek empowerment due to the responsibility that goes with it and that many managers continue to rely on methods (e. needs. confidence. Impact refers to the belief that one can influence organizational outcomes. More specifically. 2002). 1988. 1988). Leadership and follower 7 . 1993). 1995). meaning. 1997. In accordance with expectancy theory. Nevertheless.g. Transformational leadership also involves using intellectual stimulation to challenge followers’ values. 2004. transformational leaders engage in inspirational behaviors by acting as mentors and in this way they build followers’ self-confidence with respect to goal attainment (Bass and Avolio. command and control) with which they are familiar.. Spreitzer. Shamir et al.. Transformational leadership energizes followers by providing them with an exciting vision for the future rather than by providing rewards and punishments. The concept of empowerment is embraced under the guise of the movement away from “control” towards a proactive and strategic “commitment” style of management (Walton. 1999). motivation to increase one’s effort in a given task depends on an expectation that effort will result in the desired level of performance (i. Thomas and Velthouse (1990) argued that empowerment is multi-faceted and defined it as increased intrinsic task motivation that manifests itself in a set of four cognitions: Competence. Spreitzer et al.g. Finally.g. 1995. these views are consistent with the tenets of shared or distributed leadership. 2004). and values such that they are able to reach their full potential.Spreitzer.. 1985). 1994). preferences. Thomas and Velthouse.

1987). low self-efficacy leads to avoidance of all but routine tasks. resulting in low levels of performance (Bandura. and thus should enhance follower performance. 1999. 2004). 1978) and are encouraged to question the leader’s values and beliefs (Bass et al. 2001. Empowering followers to attain organizational goals and performance targets is the very essence of transformational leadership (Avolio et al. the management of employees in call-centers has largely been informed by . In relation to self-determination. followers can be empowered by words of encouragement and positive persuasion from the leader. Indeed. H2b. 2000). More than two-thirds of all customer interactions in Australia are channeled through a call-center (McLuhan. Hackman and Oldham. 1991). such as shared commitment (Judge and Ryman. it was decided that this study will focus on leadership in a call-center. and team effectiveness (Ozaralli. In recent years there has been a growth in the use of call-centers (Curtis. 1980) and the perception that one’s work affects the organization. Seibert et al.. of dispersing leadership throughout the organization. 2001) and problem solving. transformational leadership acts as a catalyst for learning ´ (Garcıa-Morales et al. 2006). Bennis and Nanus. 1985). 1997). 1966.. This effect is consistent with the notion of shared or distributed leadership that recognises the mutual influence betweens leaders and followers as well as the benefits. 1977). Historically.. In relation to meaning and impact. an important precondition of work satisfaction is the degree to which work is personally meaningful (Herzberg. to feel useful and to be part of a successful and worthwhile enterprise. The effects of transformational leadership on satisfaction with the leader will be mediated by empowerment. to make a difference. self-efficacy has a powerful direct effect on individual performance (Locke. Transformational leaders inspire their followers to higher levels of achievement by showing them that their work is worthwhile (Bennis and Nanus. 2003).. The effects of transformational leadership on performance will be mediated by empowerment. In terms of competence. Gilmore. Method Participants Given the changes occurring in the call-center industry. Transformational leaders can also empower followers by providing both positive emotional support during times of stress and opportunities to experience task mastery. A consequence of transformational leadership is the empowerment of followers such that followers are converted into effective leaders (Burns. Spector’s (1986) meta-analysis of 88 studies found strong evidence of positive associations between self-determination and both job performance and work satisfaction.LODJ 28.. 2004.1 8 Laschinger et al. Moreover. empowering followers by providing them with autonomy to manage their work and by increasing their perceived meaningfulness of their work would arguably facilitate their work-related learning and thereby improve both their satisfaction with the leader and performance. Furthermore. 1997). Based on the above discussion. 2001). and by a leader who acts as a role model (Bass. Transformational leaders appeal to some fundamental human needs: The need to be important. the following hypothesis is proposed: H2a.

New South Wales and local branches in every Australian capital city. had worked in the call-center for 3. however. on average. (2006). The in-role performance of followers was measured with the scale from Casimir et al. problem solving with clients) as well as the opportunity to interact with other employees on a professional and social basis. Sixty per cent of the operators were female. The culture of the call center could be described as relaxed and collegial. worked with their immediate supervisors for 1. The first three items were obtained from Cook and Wall’s (1980) Interpersonal Trust at Work scale. individualized consideration.5 years (s:d: ¼ 3:6). Victoria. The operators had. and meaning. The four trust items were: (1) I can trust my manager to make sensible decisions for the future of the company.1 years (s:d: ¼ 1:4). This setting was in stark contrast to traditional call centers that closely monitor and impose stringent rules on employees.2 years (s:d: ¼ 6:6). competence. The sample comprised full-time line-managers and customer service operators from a call-center for a large insurance company. inspiration. Of the 150 employees that worked in the Melbourne call center. Recent studies have indicated. Call centers were an integral part of the organization and operated 24 hours-a-day to provide immediate customer service. and they. and (4) my manager can be relied on to uphold my best interests. The organization provided home and car insurance for hundreds of thousands of clients in Australia. idealized influence behaviors. impact. (2) I feel quite confident that my manager will always try to treat me fairly. that a quiet revolution may be occurring in the call-center industry as management introduces “empowerment” techniques (Gofton. Spreitzer’s (1995) measure of empowerment was used and comprises four components: Autonomy.Taylorism and personnel management (Marshall and Richardson. The average age of the operators was 30. The call center The organization in this study was a large Australian insurance company with its headquarters in Sydney. This study focused on one call centre located in Melbourne. and intellectual stimulation were combined to form a single measure of transformational leadership. The supervisors directly reported to a senior branch manager. 1999). The line-managers were regarded as formal leaders given that they have formal authority over their direct reports. Idealized influence attributed.g. Management bestowed call center operators significant operational decision-making authority (e. on average. Short Form 5X) was used to measure transformational leadership. which comprises four items: Leadership and follower 9 . Measures The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ. 14 were supervisors and each managed between ten and 12 employees. 1999). (3) my manager would be quite prepared to deceive me for his/her own benefit (reversed). A four-item scale was used to measure trust.

109 usable matched questionnaires were returned (73 per cent response rate). performance. empowerment.1 per cent of the total variance in the items.e.e. Of the 150 matched questionnaires that were distributed. 4 ¼ strongly agree) was used with all of the measures. Principal components analyses Principal components analyses and internal reliability analyses were conducted in SPSS whilst confirmatory factor analyses were conducted in AMOS. ratings of transformational leadership.LODJ 28. a single-factor test was conducted on all of the items used to test the hypotheses that were obtained from followers (i. their line manager) as part of the study. followers) using the same method. number of calls per hour). Customer service operators and their supervisors completed the questionnaires separately. Principal component analyses were conducted to examine the factor structures of the MLQ’s sub-scales and the scales used for the mediating and dependent variables. except for the in-role performance data. The issue arises therefore as to whether the covariance between the constructs is an artifact of single-source common method bias. Operators were identified via a code (i. Results All of the data.1 (1) (2) (3) (4) completes his/her work by the time you have specified. the identification code enabled each operator’s responses to be matched to those of his/her immediate supervisor. produces work of a high standard. Finally. transformational leadership. and satisfaction with the leader were not correlated significantly with the length of the leader-follower relationship. 10 Note that the leaders rated the in-role performance of the followers.e. were obtained from the same source (i. Procedure Senior management was asked to provide a list of the names of all customer service operators and their immediate supervisors.e.g. and makes good use of his/her working time. Furthermore. Line-managers were asked to rate the performance of the operators that they supervised. Confirmatory factor analyses were then conducted using structural equation . which indicates that common source/method variance does not explain the majority of the covariance between the scales. The three-item Satisfaction scale from the MLQ was used to measure satisfaction with the leader. and satisfaction). works hard.e. Customer service operators were invited to participate in the study and informed that their performance would be rated by their immediate supervisors (i. trust in the leader. 0 ¼ strongly disagree. The results from this analysis revealed that the first factor accounted for 22. The line managers were well placed to know about the performance of individual operators due to the use of sophisticated methods of tracking critical components of employees’ performance (e. empowerment. To address this issue. trust. 1 to 150) so that their responses could remain anonymous. The use of performance data from immediate supervisors overcame some of the limitations associated commonly with common method variance. A five-point Likert scale (i.

and (4) the Root Mean Square Residual (RMSR).0 0.00 0.019 Leadership and follower 11 Table I.00 1.94 RMSR 0.011 0.86 0.92 1.5 5.95 0.73 0. 1998). which is an adjusted form of the GFI that takes into account model complexity.9 16.00 0.e.99 1.00 0.00 0. four inspirational PLS loadings Transformational leadership Idealized attitudes Idealized behaviors Individualized consideration Inspirational motivation Intellectual stimulation Empowerment Autonomy Competence Impact Meaning Trust Satisfaction Performance 0. The five transformational leadership sub-scales correlated significantly with each other.011 0. where applicable.80 0.99 0.94 0.5 3.016 0.4 0.modeling to examine further the proposed single-factor structure of the scales: Second-order confirmatory factor analyses were not conducted due to the sample size.89 0. This resulted in one item being removed from each of the scales for idealized attributed behaviors.057 0.015 0.98 0.98 0.93 0. three idealized influence behavior items. Four fit indices were used to assess each scale’s factor structure: (1) the Comparative Fit Index (CFI).00 0. (2) the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI). for the scale after the removal of the weak-loading item.99 0.98 0.99 1.00 GFI 1. A total transformational leadership score was obtained for participants by averaging their responses to 18 items (i. p . 0. the values for CFI.000 0.001 for all correlations. and show that all of the scales had a satisfactory fit.3 2.3 5.72 0.7 2.58 0.98 0..88 0. (3) the Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI).86 0.99 0.99 0.3 0. In order to demonstrate adequate model fit.0 2.99 AGFI 0.029 0. which is affected less by sample size than other indices such as the normed fit index. GFI and AGFI should all be greater than 0.0 2. four idealized influence attributed items.00 0.88 0. and intellectual stimulation.89 0.036 0.9 while the value of the RMSR should be less than 0. which indicates the amount by which the sample variances and covariances differ from estimates obtained using the hypothesized model.98 0.1 (Hair et al. The inter-item correlations for some of the MLQ sub-scales for transformational leadership were unsatisfactory as evidenced by weak loadings on their principal components: An item was regarded as having a weak loading and removed from a sub-scale if it correlated less than 0.7 df 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 CFI 1.72 x2 0.98 0.93 1.016 0.50 with the principal component.99 0.047 0.97 0. The fit indices provided in Table I are.91 1.65 0.00 1. Confirmatory factor analysis results and PLS results for the outer model .035 0.97 0. which indicates the proportion of the observed covariances that is explained by the model-implied covariances.77 0.

p .62) (0. trust.41 (6.05 for all correlations. and average variance extracted for the measured variables (0.31 0.61 (0. Scores for trust.d. competency. The fit indices provided in Table I show that all of the sub-scales have satisfactory fit. three intellectual stimulation items. 6. 0.1 12 motivation items. trust in the leader had a stronger correlation with satisfaction with the leader than with the in-role performance of followers. 2.34 0. 1998).18 (0.25 (0. Cronbach’s alphas.00 3. performance. impact.70 3 4 5 6 Table II.24.04 0. and meaning). which is larger than Nunnally’s (1978) 0.40 3. autonomy. the empowerment scale had an internal reliability coefficient of 0. Empowerment had significant positive correlations with both performance and satisfaction. 0.49) 0. the performance scale.25 0. Table II contains the correlations between the measured variables and shows that transformational leadership had significant positive correlations with empowerment. Means (standard deviations).03 2 (0. Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted on each of the empowerment sub-scales (i.35 0. 0. Partial least squares analysis A partial least squares (PLS) analysis was conducted to examine the mediation effects of empowerment and satisfaction on the relationships between the two types of leadership and the two dependent variables. Principal components analyses showed that the three items in each of the empowerment sub-scales loaded strongly onto their respective principal components. 3. and four individualized consideration items). As shown in Table II. all of the items loaded strongly onto one component and the fit indices shown in Table I are satisfactory for a single-factor representation of each of the scales. significance: r . The four empowerment sub-scales correlated significantly with each other.44) (0. and satisfaction. p . empowerment was more strongly correlated with the in-role performance of followers than with satisfaction with the leader. More specifically.30 0. and satisfaction with the leader were obtained by averaging the responses to the items in each of the scales. 4. correlations.74 0. As shown in Table II.78) Alpha 0. Age TF Empowerment Trust Perform Satisfaction 30. r .89 3.70) 0.72) (0. 0. PLS was selected to analyze the overall model because: Mean (s. p .) 1.76 1 0.19 3. trust had significant positive correlations with both performance and satisfaction.e. the final transformational leadership scale had satisfactory internal reliability as evidenced by the alpha.57) (0. all three of these scales had satisfactory internal reliability.64.91 0.LODJ 28. For each scale.36 0. performance.67) Notes: Average variance extracted for each scale is presented in parentheses on the diagonal.81 4. which is deemed acceptable (Hair et al.05..85 0.22 20. A total empowerment score was obtained for participants by averaging their responses to the 12 empowerment items.64 0. As shown in Table II. Finally. and the satisfaction with the leader scale to examine their proposed uni-dimensionality.78 0.70 criterion.61) 0. Separate confirmatory factor analyses were conducted on the trust scale. More specifically.01 .17.6) (0.71) 0. 5. 0.10 0.

. it does not require assumptions of multivariate normality.5 for all of the constructs. and it is appropriate when multicollinearity is present (Chin. The results from the PLS analysis are presented in Figure 1 and show that: .e. In order for a measure to have acceptable convergent and discriminant validity. 13 Figure 1. which is calculated by squaring the correlation coefficient between the construct and another construct. 1998). 1998). . Results from the PLS analysis . All of the constructs therefore had acceptable convergent and discriminant validity as the AVE for each construct is greater than the variance explained by any other construct. except for empowerment (AVE ¼ 0. the effects of transformational leadership on performance were mediated by trust in the leader (H1a was therefore supported). The average variance extracted (AVE) by the construct representing its items was calculated to test the convergent validity and the discriminant validity of the measured constructs. it is suitable for small samples. The AVEs for the measured constructs are presented in Table II and show that the AVE was greater than 0. The AVE represents the average squared loading (i. 1998)..49). Leadership and follower The bootstrapping procedure in PLS Graph was used to test the significance of the regression coefficients. . it should have an AVE greater than 0. average communality) of the items representing a construct as obtained from the PLS analysis.5 and share more variance with its items than with other constructs in the model (Chin. Bootstrapping is a method for testing the reliability of the dataset and is based on a random re-sampling of the original dataset to create new samples of the same size as the original dataset for the purpose of estimating the error of the estimated path coefficients (Chin. it is well suited for testing complex models.

This finding is consistent with Shamir et al. self-efficacy) having effects on specific outcome variables (e. idealized attributes and behaviors).g. the effects of transformational leadership on performance were mediated by empowerment (H2a was therefore supported). these findings have demonstrated that mediators can have specific effects on different outcome variables. but not performance. and their perception of task meaningfulness. to changes in the self-concept of followers. it appears that in order to improve in-role performance and satisfaction with the leader. in part. It might be the case that these unique effects stem from the capacity of transformational leadership. and the effects of transformational leadership on satisfaction with the leader were not mediated by empowerment (H2b was therefore not supported).g. More specifically. The findings indicate that empowerment leads to improved performance. but not job satisfaction.e. in-role performance of followers as rated by the leader and satisfaction with the leader) were examined. Specifically. 14 .LODJ 28. the effects of transformational leadership on satisfaction with the leader were mediated partially by trust in the leader as evidenced by the significant direct effect of transformational leadership on satisfaction with the leader (H1b was therefore partially supported). Shamir et al. extra effort) that are distinct from the effects of other . (1993) regarded transformational leadership as directly affecting followers’ sense of competence. These findings are consistent with those of Jung and Avolio (2000) and show that transformational leadership has unique effects on followers’ satisfaction with the leader. First. It is noteworthy that the in-role performance of followers was more closely related to empowerment than to trust in the leader. The results also revealed that trust in the leader partially mediated the relationship between transformational leadership and satisfaction with the leader. Discussion The mediating effects of psychological empowerment and trust in the leader on the relationship between transformational leadership and two outcomes (i. The results revealed that psychological empowerment mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and the leaders’ ratings of the in-role performance of their followers. The results have several important implications for leadership theorists and leadership practitioners. It stands to reason that empowering followers helps them to perform their jobs more so than does trust in the leader because empowerment involves behaviors that directly influence how followers perceive and perform their work. all of which are components of the empowerment measure used in this study. The implications of the findings for leadership theorists are that a fine-grained approach is required to understand the leadership “black box” in that different mediators were found to affect different outcomes. The only significant direct effect was that of transformational leadership on satisfaction with the leader. followers need to be empowered and to trust their leaders.1 . presumably due to its charismatic components (i. their ability to control their environment.e. trust leads to greater job satisfaction. In sum. to evoke admiration of and identification with the leader. . In contrast.’s (1993) theory which states that the transformational effects of charismatic leadership are due. a fine-grained approach would recognize the likelihood of some mediators (e. their values.

may reveal details on how leaders actually empower followers and on how the development of trust is associated with empowerment. which has high levels of control. As has been shown in this study. Finally. trust. leadership selection should include the personality and the motives of leadership candidates because some candidates who are highly competent may be unable. First. These findings have significant consequences for managerial practice and for human resource development. call-center management can better ensure the long-term productivity and skill development of employees by providing them with flexible working hours and opportunities for developing problem solving skills. responsibility. data were collected from a single organization in the call-centre industry and therefore the generalizability of the findings is questionable. more light can be shed into the black box of leadership by utilizing qualitative methodologies that examine processual issues associated with transformational leadership.g.mediators (e. the data for transformational leadership. trust in the leader may also influence other important outcomes such as organizational commitment. First. Limitations Some limitations need to be mentioned. Machiavellian tendencies). the fair treatment of their followers. and being genuinely concerned about the best interests of their followers. Additionally. Furthermore. for example. Interview-based data. followers) and this method may bias the relationships between these variables. These data are collected routinely by call-centers but the researchers were not allowed access to such data. in a call-center context. to develop trusting leader-follower relationships. The implications of the findings for leadership practitioners are quite clear. Second. the call-center industry should continue to introduce and experiment with workplace innovations that foster psychological empowerment rather than rely on transactional behaviors that emphasize economic exchanges and solving work-related problems. it would have been better if the in-role performance of followers was measured using objective data such as average call time. issues such as the role of contextual factors (e. Leadership and follower 15 . Given that trust in the leader enhances satisfaction with the leader.g. task structure and follower expertise) in the relationship between transformational leadership and both trust in the leader and empowerment could also be explored via qualitative approaches.g. transformational leadership can improve the performance of followers by empowering them and by developing trust in the leader. trust and empowerment) on these variables. Although trustworthiness appears relatively easy to achieve. As Gofton (1999) suggested. Additionally. and satisfaction were obtained via a common method from a single source (i. leaders can facilitate the development of perceptions of trustworthiness through competence. although the in-role performance of followers was rated by their leaders to circumvent the effects of common method bias.e. standardization and formalization. It can be inferred from the findings that trust in the leader is an important outcome of transformational leadership as trust mediated the relationship between such leadership and both satisfaction with the leader and performance. for various reasons (e. as well as by increasing the accountability. empowerment. and independent decision-making authority of employees.

T. References Argyris. Waldman. B. Cook. B. 12. Bass. Vol. pp. Butler. B. J. “Transformational leadership and organizational culture”. A. “Call-centers must adapt their ways”. and Bhatia. such as growth need strength (Hackman and Oldham. “A behavioral decision theory approach to modeling dyadic trust in superiors and subordinates”. Waldman. pp. Chin. Vol. 19-31. Thousand Oaks. and Avolio. 191-215. 747-59. Vol. Harvard Business Review. Free Press. Journal of Organizational Behavior.. pp. J. pp. 471-82. pp. (1994). 17. Bass. and Yang.). New York. Moreover. Avolio. Vol. B. (1998). other aspects of personality. Harper Business. pp. W. Vol. S. Improving Organizational Effectiveness through Transformational Leadership. pp. Leadership. G. and Cantrell. for example. “Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance”. B. “Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioural change”. and Wall. J. 295-336. 1980) influence reactions to empowerment. 951-68. CA. Bass. R. neuroticism) influence one’s propensity to trust. New York. 25. (1997). NY. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (1980). . Modern Methods for Business Research. S. and Bebb. T. pp. Vol. Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations. 53. J. Conger. “Transformational leadership and the falling dominoes effect”. (1990). R. B. Vol. 3. 18. 22.. Burns. Vol.. 55. W.1 16 Future research Future research needs to incorporate other variables that affect important outcome variables. 84. and Avolio. Harper & Row. Journal of Occupational Psychology. 112-21. 13 No. J. qualitative methodologies would be useful for examining processual issues associated with transformational leadership and its effects on followers. P. (2006). B. pp. (Ed. W.LODJ 28. 19-28. and Nanus. 33-41.g. by including the personality of the followers because it is well established that aspects of personality (e. B. “New work attitude measures of trust. 3. Kanungo. Vol. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. Public Administration Quarterly. “From transactional to transformational leadership: learning to share the vision”. Finally. Casimir. (1984). Vol. 21. Academy of Management Review. Organizational Dynamics. “Charismatic leadership and follower effects”. as mentioned earlier. pp. Sage. (1998). NY. Journal of Organizational Behavior. (2000). G.. organizational commitment and personal need non-fulfillment”. Psychological Reports. Zhu. Conger. D. Bartram. pp. Marketing. B. (1988). (1999). J. 12. Bandura. Psychological Review. C. Bass. (1993). (2004). Avolio. NY. Bennis. and Kanungo. and Menon. 76 No. B. (1977). Leaders: Strategies for Taking Charge. 73-87. “The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling”. D. 98-105. Bass. “The empowerment process: integrating theory and practice”. Vol. Group and Organization Studies. M.. The current study could be extended. (1978). R. “Trust and the relationship between leadership and follower performance: opening the black box in Australia and China”. Vol. London. Curtis. New York. in Marcoulides. (1987). W. Koh.. 72-88. “Empowerment: the emperor’s new clothes”. 39-52.. pp. (1985). pp.

MA. Elsevier Science. 183-98. “Antecedents and consequences of organizational innovation and organizational learning in entrepreneurship”. and Yammarino. 21 No. the motivation hub. Vol. Mayer. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. (2000). call-centres and urban and regional development”. (1999). 1. and Why People Demand It. 288-99. R. “An integration model of organizational trust”. Finegan. Hackman. Educational Management and Administration. NJ. Marshall. S. McLuhan. 267-91. and Sivasubramaniam. (1991). 2. and Shamir. NY. 1. 48-60. B. Anderson. New York. J. K. Prentice-Hall. IL. “Effects of transformational leadership on empowerment and team effectiveness”. R. (2001). and Ryman. 22. Jung. 709-34. Kirkman. Vol. Jossey-Bass. pp. Reading. Academy of Management Journal. San Francisco. (1966). Oxford. Vol. (1999). 15. pp. Vol. Vol. A. 15. “Tele-services. Vol. Judge. 50 No. and Posner. (1999). B. 5 No. Tatham. Locke. E.. Vol. 6 No. Credibility: How leaders Gain and Lose It. 25. 24 Nos 5-6. Vol. The Leader’s Edge: The Seven Keys to Leadership in a Turbulent World. (2006).C. (2003). 2. (2001). J. K. Marketing. Chicago. B. OH. N. 21-42. B.. 33-42. E. (2001). Work and the Nature of Man. (1978). 3. Davis. (1995). pp. pp. Marketing. Health Care Management Review. and Richardson. R. 335-44. pp. 20 No. 56-74. Gilmore. J. P. pp. “Opening the black box: an experimental investigation of the mediating effects of trust and value congruence on transformational and transactional leadership”. pp. and Black. Vol. pp. pp. “Call-centers widen their field of vision”. Vol. and Verdu-Jover. (1996). F. The Leadership Quarterly. Academy of Management Executive. (1993). Klein. F. R. 96-116. B. and Oldham. pp. pp. Vol. Leadership and follower 17 . in Avolio. “The impact of workplace empowerment and organizational trust on staff nurses’ work satisfaction and organizational commitment”. Kroeck. Llorens-Montes. 8. and Schoorman. “Distributed properties: a new architecture for leadership”. 2. “Beyond self-management: antecedents and consequences of team empowerment”. Psychometric Theory. Hair.. Gofton. Vol. 385-425. Transformational and Charismatic Leadership: The Road Ahead. R. J. W. H. G. J. J. 71-9. 7 No. Laschinger. (1980). (1998). J. Herzberg. CA. R. Kouzes. V. “The motivation sequence. K. Multivariate Data Analysis. Lowe. “Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature”. and the motivation core”. World Publishing.´ ´ Garcıa-Morales. Addison-Wesley. B. pp. “Call-centers grow in size and range”. Gronn. The Leadership Quarterly. pp. (2002). 3. Contemporary Books. and House. and Shamian. F. W. (Eds). pp. (2000). (1989). 317-38. pp. “Telemarketing league tables: technology spurs call centre growth”. McGraw-Hill. pp. J. K. Nunnally.. J. “The dual effects of transformational leadership: priming relational and collective selves and further effects on followers”. 20-32. Work Redesign. Nanus. “The shared leadership challenge in strategic alliances: lessons from the US healthcare industry”. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 41-59. “On fire: charismatic leadership and levels of analysis”. 42 No. Marketing. Kirkpatrick. 26. The Service Industries Journal.. Ozaralli. Vol. “Leadership: do traits matter?”. D. and Avolio. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2.. 106 Nos 1-2. 19 No. pp. Vol. F. (2000). Academy of Management Executive. A. 28 No. Kark. and Rosen. and Locke. Cleveland. Vol. R. (1991). 949-64. B. N. 7-23. Industrial Management & Data Systems. (1995). Upper Saddle River. Vol. Academy of Management Review.

130-9. Vol. R. S. “Taking empowerment to the next level: a multiple-level model of empowerment. 1005-16. 15 No. Thomas. measurement and validation”. (1993).1 18 Pillai. pp. 47. and Bass. and Velthouse. R. Vol. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. NJ. (1986). 1 No. New York. Jossey-Bass.. New Brunswick.. (1993). in Berkowitz. “Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader. Prentice-Hall. NJ. Vol. Schreisheim. 38. Academy of Management Journal. G. and Werner. (1990). A. Vol. New York. “Injustice in social exchange”. J. E. pp. 513-30. P. E. L. B. pp. Podsakoff. Englewood Cliffs. and Nason. “Perceived control by employees: a meta-analysis of studies concerning autonomy and participation at work”. (1998). Brodt. 2. (1995). Korsgaard. Vol. (2000). 897-933. The Leadership Quarterly. R.). The Leadership Quarterly. (1964). Seibert. American Psychologist. pp. Berrett-Koehler. K. 39 No. pp. 199-218. G. 25 No. B. Kizilos. Journal of Management. 1024-37. Block. and Ryan. 11. 666-81. E.. R. 4. “Fairness perceptions and trust as mediators for transformational and transactional leadership: a two-sample study”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. pp. pp. (1985). S. S. Walton. . M. Journal of Management. J. Spreitzer. C. pp. “A dimensional analysis of the relationship between psychological empowerment and effectiveness. J. Academy of Management Review. 52. 6. 53. “Managers as initiators of trust: an exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial behavior”. Vol. (1965). 3. pp. B. Vol. John Wiley. Harvard Business Review. 63 No. and Cummings. (1985). Shamir. pp. 6.. 2. Bromiley. (2004). San Francisco.. Vol. and Associates (Eds). and Arthur. M. in Mezirow. (1990). Stewardship. Academy of Management Review. “Organizations with trust: theory and measurement”.. “From control to commitment in the workplace”. pp. NY. Further reading Adams. M. (1995). and satisfaction”. “The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: a self-concept based theory”. “Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries?”. and Fetter. Avolio. Atlanta. GA. S. Academy of Management Journal. B. B. Vol. Barber. Organization Science. San Francisco. R. Vol. (1997). satisfaction. NY. 77-84. 1442-56. 185-217. performance. 4. CA. 107-42. Spector. “Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis: a multi-level framework for examining the diffusion of transformational leadership”. 23 No. 332-50.. pp. pp. CA. B. Whitener. Deci. Bass. Rutgers University Press. 679-704. L. pp. Vol. and strain”. Human Relations. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social-Cognitive View. 577-94. (1997). E. 23. MacKenzie. P. and Randolph. Blau. and Williams. (1999). Bandura. Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives on a Theory in Progress. R. satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviors”. (Ed. Academic Press. (1986). “The support of autonomy and control of behavior”. (1993). 4 No. 2.. P. S. Silver. 267-300. Spreitzer. “Analyzing research on transformative learning theory”. House. “Cognitive elements of empowerment: an integrative model of intrinsic task motivation”.LODJ 28. Exchange and Power in Social Life. Moorman. Vol. “Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions. Vol. P. W. paper presented at the 53rd annual meeting of the Academy of Management. pp. Taylor. P. The Logic and Limits of Trust. (1983).

pp. 197-221. (1990). Judson. (1997). Basic Books. (1987). B. Academy of Management Journal. (2001). Harper & Row. pp. 35. 472-85. V. and Einstein. 10 Steps to Empowerment: A Common Sense Guide to Managing People. S. 31-62. NY. (1971). Vol. pp. Leadership and follower 19 To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight. Tracey. pp. pp. (1995). and Puranam. 134-43. (1999). pp. and Schuler. R.. Lawler. Bass. Wiley. “Defining and measuring employee empowerment”. MacDuffie. 1. Journal of Occupational . In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America’s Best-Run Companies. (1994). B. (1986). Simon & Schuster. D. and Lawler. and Raven. NY. (1964). G. Academy of Management Journal. University of Michigan. (1995). 3. MI. The Leadership Quarterly. Ramirez. “Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance: flexible productions systems in the world auto industry”. D. and Heffner. NY.. pp. Jackson. (1967). “Toward a common ground in defining empowerment”.. “Social distance and charisma: theoretical notes and an exploratory study”. M. (1997). Shamir. Industrial and Relations Review. New York. 44 No. 48. (1983). Research in Organizational Change and Development. “Citizenship behavior and social exchange”. The Professional Manager. 259-85. D. 19-47. J. E. McGregor. Peters. Corresponding author Timothy Bartram can be contacted at: t. T. New York. and Pugh. Academy of Management Journal. “Employee reactions to job characteristics”. in Cartwright. Vroom. “The bases of social power”. Vol. Herrenkohl. R. D. 1. “Self-efficacy: implications for organizational behaviour and human resource management”.com Or visit our web site for further details: www. J. “Does leadership matter? CEO leadership attributes and profitability under conditions of perceived environmental uncertainty”. “Technical and strategic human resource management effectiveness as determinants of firm performance”. New York. 60. Huselid. 12. (1982). R. MA. E. New York. 373-89. R. M. P. G. Journal of Applied Psychology. D. Vol. 37 No. pp. pp. New York. Gabarro. and Waterman. Kanter. McGraw-Hill. The Change Masters: Innovation and Entrepreneurship in the American Corporation. Boston. 3. R. 656-69. G.emeraldinsight. Men and Women of the Corporation. Vol. “Leadership and outcomes of performance appraisal processes”.). J. M.French. William Morrow. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 10. Work and Motivation. NY. Vol. Studies in Social Power. Vol. 6 No. High Involvement Management. Vol. Gist. pp. Academy of Management Journal. (1977). Spreitzer. Harvard Business School. (1959). Hackman. NY. Waldman. J. (1987). Jossey-Bass.bartram@latrobe. Vol. 40 No. Vol. Ann Arbor. CA. (Ed. B. 171-88. 177-86. R... House. J. San Francisco. 55. Konovsky. pp. 150-67. Waldman. Vol. Kanter. New York. W. (1987). The Dynamics of Taking Charge.