The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.

htm

LODJ 28,1

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, La Trobe University, Australia, and

Gian Casimir
Newcastle Graduate School of Business, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, 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.e. the in-role performance of followers as rated by the leader and satisfaction with the leader). Design/methodology/approach In total, 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. their line manager) as part of the study. A sample of 109 responses were used in the analysis. 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, whereas the effects of transformational leadership on satisfaction were partially mediated by trust in the leader. Research limitations/implications The implications of the ndings for leadership theorists is that a more ne-grained approach is required to understand the leadership black box in that different mediators have been shown to affect different outcomes. Practical implications In a call-center context, which has high levels of control, standardization and formalization, transformational leadership can improve the performance of followers by empowering them and by developing 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. Keywords Leadership, Empowerment, Trust, Transformational leadership Paper type Research paper
Leadership & Organization Development Journal Vol. 28 No. 1, 2007 pp. 4-19 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0143-7739 DOI 10.1108/01437730710718218

There is growing interest in the role of leaders fostering employees to take initiative, embrace risk, stimulate innovation and cope with uncertainty (Spreitzer, 1995). Additionally, recent work on shared or distributed leadership emphasizes the importance of leaders empowering followers and accepting mutual inuence to

facilitate performance (e.g. Gronn, 2000). The empowerment of employees is vital for organizational effectiveness. 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. Research on transactional leadership and transformational leadership, however, 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. 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.e. in-role performance of followers as rated by the leader and satisfaction with the leader). 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, 1989). Trust in the leader correlates positively with various outcomes such as organizational citizenship behaviors, performance, and satisfaction (e.g. Jung and Avolio, 2000; Pillai et al., 1999). It is suggested that trust is a vital antecedent of satisfaction with the leader because both stem from affective states (e.g. admiration of the leader) and cognitive states (e.g. the leader is held in high esteem because of capabilities or attributes) rather than from observed behaviors of the leader (Conger et al., 2000). Trust can be dened as a willingness to depend on another party (Mayer et al., 1995) as well as an expectation that the other party will reciprocate if one cooperates. Perceived ability (Cook and Wall, 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 fullling the leadership role (Whitener et al., 1998). Trust also stems from an individuals condence in another partys intentions and motives towards oneself and others (Butler and Cantrell, 1984). Credibility and integrity are also cornerstones of trust (Kouzes and Posner, 1993). Transformational leadership has been dened in terms of articulating a compelling vision for followers, behaving self-sacricially, intellectually stimulating followers, and providing them with individualized consideration (Bass, 1985; Klein and House, 1995). 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, value congruence, satisfaction, effectiveness, extra-role behaviors and organizational learning (e.g. Lowe et al., 1996; Garca-Morales et al., 2006). Transformational leadership has been shown consistently to be associated with trust in the leader (e.g. Bass, 1990; Lowe et al., 1996). Transformational leadership facilitates the development of trust in the leader for several reasons: The leaders own determination and commitment to the vision, as evidenced by self-sacricial behaviors, indicate that the leader is walking the talk and thereby builds credibility (Conger and Kanungo, 1988; Kouzes and Posner, 1993); the leaders high level of self-condence leads to perceptions of competence, which helps to engender trust because the leader is seen as capable of fullling the leadership role (Whitener et al., 1998) in terms of making sound decisions (Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1991) and having the ability to achieve the vision; espousing and embodying shared values causes followers to identify with and admire the leader (Bennis and Nanus, 1997; Jung and Avolio, 2000); positive emotions experienced by followers due to increased levels of self-efcacy

Leadership and follower

LODJ 28,1

(Shamir et al., 1993) and feeling that they are pursuing meaningful goals (Bennis and Nanus, 1997); individualized consideration (i.e. 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; condence in the intentions and motives of the leader result in perceptions of procedural justice and, in turn, trust (Pillai et al., 1999); and acting as a mentor and paying close attention to followers needs for achievement and growth (Kark and Shamir, 2002) indicate a concern for the welfare of followers, which is pivotal for trust. 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, 1985) and ultimately improving their performance. However, 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, 2000). High levels of satisfaction and performance arguably require trust in the leader. Merely enacting leadership behaviors does not guarantee that followers will be satised or that they will be motivated to perform. Followers need to trust the leader in order to feel positively about the leader and to exert extra effort to perform effectively. If followers believe the leader is not genuinely concerned about their welfare, lacks integrity, or is incompetent, they will be unlikely to trust the leader and consequently they will be dissatised with the leader and not motivated to cooperate fully with the leader thereby adversely affecting their performance. 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, 1985). Transformational leadership requires trust in the leader because of the uncertainty inherent in changing the status quo. Trust in the leader is therefore important because it is an antecedent of risk-taking behavior (Mayer et al., 1995). Furthermore, followers need to trust the leader if they are to cooperate and commit fully to the leaders vision (Bass, 1985) as well as if they are to respond positively to intellectual stimulation. 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., 1999; Podsakoff et al., 1990), performance and satisfaction with the leader (Jung and Avolio, 2000). Based on the above discussion, the following hypothesis is proposed: H1a. The effects of transformational leadership on performance will be mediated by trust in the leader. H1b. The effects of transformational leadership on satisfaction with the leader will be mediated by trust in the leader. Transformational leadership and empowerment Followers need to be empowered by their leaders in order to perform optimally. There is growing interest in the role of leaders in fostering employees to take initiative, embrace risk, stimulate innovation, and cope with uncertainty (Laschinger et al., 2001;

Spreitzer, 1995). 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, 1985); these views are consistent with the tenets of shared or distributed leadership. Nevertheless, there are those (e.g. Argyris, 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.g. command and control) with which they are familiar. Contemporary research on psychological empowerment has focused on articulating the empowerment process and the psychological underpinnings of the construct in terms of self-efcacy and autonomy (Conger and Kanungo, 1988; Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas and Velthouse, 1990). Empowerment refers to a process whereby an individuals self-efcacy is enhanced (Conger and Kanungo, 1988). Empowerment as an enabling process affects both the initiation and the persistence of followers task-oriented behaviors (Bandura, 1977). In accordance with expectancy theory, motivation to increase ones effort in a given task depends on an expectation that effort will result in the desired level of performance (i.e. expectancy). Thomas and Velthouse (1990) argued that empowerment is multi-faceted and dened it as increased intrinsic task motivation that manifests itself in a set of four cognitions: Competence, impact, meaning, and self-determination. Competence refers to self-efcacy or personal mastery in relation to ones work. Impact refers to the belief that one can inuence organizational outcomes. Meaning refers to the importance placed on a given job based on ones values. Self-determination refers to autonomy in making decisions about ones work (Avolio et al., 2004). Transformational leadership energizes followers by providing them with an exciting vision for the future rather than by providing rewards and punishments. Beyond providing a vision, transformational leaders engage in inspirational behaviors by acting as mentors and in this way they build followers self-condence with respect to goal attainment (Bass and Avolio, 1993; Shamir et al., 1993). Transformational leadership alters followers aspirations, identities, needs, preferences, and values such that they are able to reach their full potential. More specically, transformational leaders build team spirit through their enthusiasm, high moral standards, integrity, and optimism and provide meaning and challenge to their followers work, enhancing followers level of self-efcacy, condence, meaning, and self-determination (Avolio et al., 2004, p. 953). Transformational leadership also involves using intellectual stimulation to challenge followers values, beliefs, 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, 1994). Finally, 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, 2002). 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. There is substantial empirical support for the relationship between empowerment and positive outcomes such as follower performance (see Spreitzer, 1995; Spreitzer et al., 1997; Kirkman and Rosen, 1999), follower satisfaction (e.g.

Leadership and follower

LODJ 28,1

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

Taylorism and personnel management (Marshall and Richardson, 1999). Recent studies have indicated, however, that a quiet revolution may be occurring in the call-center industry as management introduces empowerment techniques (Gofton, 1999). The sample comprised full-time line-managers and customer service operators from a call-center for a large insurance company. The line-managers were regarded as formal leaders given that they have formal authority over their direct reports. The average age of the operators was 30.2 years (s:d: 6:6), and they, on average, had worked in the call-center for 3.5 years (s:d: 3:6). Sixty per cent of the operators were female. The operators had, on average, worked with their immediate supervisors for 1.1 years (s:d: 1:4). The call center The organization in this study was a large Australian insurance company with its headquarters in Sydney, New South Wales and local branches in every Australian capital city. The organization provided home and car insurance for hundreds of thousands of clients in Australia. Call centers were an integral part of the organization and operated 24 hours-a-day to provide immediate customer service. This study focused on one call centre located in Melbourne, Victoria. Of the 150 employees that worked in the Melbourne call center, 14 were supervisors and each managed between ten and 12 employees. The supervisors directly reported to a senior branch manager. The culture of the call center could be described as relaxed and collegial. Management bestowed call center operators signicant operational decision-making authority (e.g. problem solving with clients) as well as the opportunity to interact with other employees on a professional and social basis. This setting was in stark contrast to traditional call centers that closely monitor and impose stringent rules on employees. Measures The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ, Short Form 5X) was used to measure transformational leadership. Idealized inuence attributed, idealized inuence behaviors, individualized consideration, inspiration, and intellectual stimulation were combined to form a single measure of transformational leadership. Spreitzers (1995) measure of empowerment was used and comprises four components: Autonomy, competence, impact, and meaning. A four-item scale was used to measure trust. The four trust items were: (1) I can trust my manager to make sensible decisions for the future of the company; (2) I feel quite condent that my manager will always try to treat me fairly; (3) my manager would be quite prepared to deceive me for his/her own benet (reversed); and (4) my manager can be relied on to uphold my best interests. The rst three items were obtained from Cook and Walls (1980) Interpersonal Trust at Work scale. The in-role performance of followers was measured with the scale from Casimir et al. (2006), which comprises four items:

Leadership and follower

LODJ 28,1

(1) (2) (3) (4)

completes his/her work by the time you have specied; works hard; produces work of a high standard; and makes good use of his/her working time.

10

Note that the leaders rated the in-role performance of the followers. The three-item Satisfaction scale from the MLQ was used to measure satisfaction with the leader. A ve-point Likert scale (i.e. 0 strongly disagree, 4 strongly agree) was used with all of the measures. Procedure Senior management was asked to provide a list of the names of all customer service operators and their immediate supervisors. Customer service operators were invited to participate in the study and informed that their performance would be rated by their immediate supervisors (i.e. their line manager) as part of the study. Line-managers were asked to rate the performance of the operators that they supervised. 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.g. number of calls per hour). The use of performance data from immediate supervisors overcame some of the limitations associated commonly with common method variance. Operators were identied via a code (i.e. 1 to 150) so that their responses could remain anonymous. Furthermore, the identication code enabled each operators responses to be matched to those of his/her immediate supervisor. Customer service operators and their supervisors completed the questionnaires separately. Of the 150 matched questionnaires that were distributed, 109 usable matched questionnaires were returned (73 per cent response rate). Results All of the data, except for the in-role performance data, were obtained from the same source (i.e. followers) using the same method. The issue arises therefore as to whether the covariance between the constructs is an artifact of single-source common method bias. To address this issue, a single-factor test was conducted on all of the items used to test the hypotheses that were obtained from followers (i.e. transformational leadership, empowerment, trust, and satisfaction). The results from this analysis revealed that the rst factor accounted for 22.1 per cent of the total variance in the items, which indicates that common source/method variance does not explain the majority of the covariance between the scales. Finally, ratings of transformational leadership, empowerment, trust in the leader, performance, and satisfaction with the leader were not correlated signicantly with the length of the leader-follower relationship. Principal components analyses Principal components analyses and internal reliability analyses were conducted in SPSS whilst conrmatory factor analyses were conducted in AMOS. Principal component analyses were conducted to examine the factor structures of the MLQs sub-scales and the scales used for the mediating and dependent variables. Conrmatory factor analyses were then conducted using structural equation

modeling to examine further the proposed single-factor structure of the scales: Second-order conrmatory factor analyses were not conducted due to the sample size. Four t indices were used to assess each scales factor structure: (1) the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), which is affected less by sample size than other indices such as the normed t index; (2) the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), which indicates the proportion of the observed covariances that is explained by the model-implied covariances; (3) the Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI), which is an adjusted form of the GFI that takes into account model complexity; and (4) the Root Mean Square Residual (RMSR), which indicates the amount by which the sample variances and covariances differ from estimates obtained using the hypothesized model. In order to demonstrate adequate model t, the values for CFI, GFI and AGFI should all be greater than 0.9 while the value of the RMSR should be less than 0.1 (Hair et al., 1998). 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 0.50 with the principal component. This resulted in one item being removed from each of the scales for idealized attributed behaviors, and intellectual stimulation. The t indices provided in Table I are, where applicable, for the scale after the removal of the weak-loading item, and show that all of the scales had a satisfactory t. The ve transformational leadership sub-scales correlated signicantly with each other; p , 0.001 for all correlations. A total transformational leadership score was obtained for participants by averaging their responses to 18 items (i.e. four idealized inuence attributed items, three idealized inuence behavior items, four inspirational
PLS loadings Transformational leadership Idealized attitudes Idealized behaviors Individualized consideration Inspirational motivation Intellectual stimulation Empowerment Autonomy Competence Impact Meaning Trust Satisfaction Performance 0.89 0.86 0.86 0.73 0.88 0.77 0.58 0.72 0.72 x2 0.5 3.3 5.0 2.7 2.0 2.4 0.0 0.5 5.9 16.3 0.3 2.7 df 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 CFI 1.00 0.95 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.91 1.00 1.00 GFI 1.00 0.98 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.97 0.93 1.00 0.99 AGFI 0.99 0.88 0.89 0.94 0.93 0.92 1.00 0.98 0.80 0.65 0.99 0.94 RMSR 0.011 0.057 0.029 0.036 0.047 0.016 0.000 0.016 0.015 0.035 0.011 0.019

Leadership and follower

11

Table I. Conrmatory factor analysis results and PLS results for the outer model

LODJ 28,1

12

motivation items, three intellectual stimulation items, and four individualized consideration items). As shown in Table II, the nal transformational leadership scale had satisfactory internal reliability as evidenced by the alpha, which is larger than Nunnallys (1978) 0.70 criterion. Table II contains the correlations between the measured variables and shows that transformational leadership had signicant positive correlations with empowerment, trust, performance, and satisfaction. Empowerment had signicant positive correlations with both performance and satisfaction. More specically, empowerment was more strongly correlated with the in-role performance of followers than with satisfaction with the leader. Finally, trust had signicant positive correlations with both performance and satisfaction. More specically, trust in the leader had a stronger correlation with satisfaction with the leader than with the in-role performance of followers. Conrmatory factor analyses were conducted on each of the empowerment sub-scales (i.e. autonomy, competency, impact, and meaning). Principal components analyses showed that the three items in each of the empowerment sub-scales loaded strongly onto their respective principal components. The t indices provided in Table I show that all of the sub-scales have satisfactory t. The four empowerment sub-scales correlated signicantly with each other; p , 0.05 for all correlations. A total empowerment score was obtained for participants by averaging their responses to the 12 empowerment items. As shown in Table II, the empowerment scale had an internal reliability coefcient of 0.64, which is deemed acceptable (Hair et al., 1998). Separate conrmatory factor analyses were conducted on the trust scale, the performance scale, and the satisfaction with the leader scale to examine their proposed uni-dimensionality. For each scale, all of the items loaded strongly onto one component and the t indices shown in Table I are satisfactory for a single-factor representation of each of the scales. Scores for trust, performance, and satisfaction with the leader were obtained by averaging the responses to the items in each of the scales. As shown in Table II, all three of these scales had satisfactory internal reliability. 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. PLS was selected to analyze the overall model because:
Mean (s.d.) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Age TF Empowerment Trust Perform Satisfaction 30.19 3.40 3.81 4.00 3.89 3.41 (6.6) (0.62) (0.44) (0.57) (0.72) (0.78) Alpha 0.91 0.64 0.78 0.85 0.76 1 0.04 0.25 0.10 0.22 20.03 2 (0.71) 0.30 0.74 0.34 0.70 3 4 5 6

Table II. Means (standard deviations), correlations, Cronbachs alphas, and average variance extracted for the measured variables

(0.49) 0.31 0.35 0.18

(0.61) 0.36 0.61

(0.70) 0.25

(0.67)

Notes: Average variance extracted for each scale is presented in parentheses on the diagonal; signicance: r . 0.17, p , 0.05; r . 0.24, p , 0.01

. . . .

it does not require assumptions of multivariate normality; it is suitable for small samples; it is well suited for testing complex models; and it is appropriate when multicollinearity is present (Chin, 1998).

Leadership and follower

The bootstrapping procedure in PLS Graph was used to test the signicance of the regression coefcients. 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 coefcients (Chin, 1998). 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. The AVE represents the average squared loading (i.e. average communality) of the items representing a construct as obtained from the PLS analysis. In order for a measure to have acceptable convergent and discriminant validity, it should have an AVE greater than 0.5 and share more variance with its items than with other constructs in the model (Chin, 1998). The AVEs for the measured constructs are presented in Table II and show that the AVE was greater than 0.5 for all of the constructs, except for empowerment (AVE 0.49). 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, which is calculated by squaring the correlation coefcient between the construct and another construct. The results from the PLS analysis are presented in Figure 1 and show that: . the effects of transformational leadership on performance were mediated by trust in the leader (H1a was therefore supported);

13

Figure 1. Results from the PLS analysis

LODJ 28,1

14

the effects of transformational leadership on satisfaction with the leader were mediated partially by trust in the leader as evidenced by the signicant direct effect of transformational leadership on satisfaction with the leader (H1b was therefore partially supported); the effects of transformational leadership on performance were mediated by empowerment (H2a was therefore supported); and the effects of transformational leadership on satisfaction with the leader were not mediated by empowerment (H2b was therefore not supported).

Discussion The mediating effects of psychological empowerment and trust in the leader on the relationship between transformational leadership and two outcomes (i.e. in-role performance of followers as rated by the leader and satisfaction with the leader) were examined. The only signicant direct effect was that of transformational leadership on satisfaction with the leader. The results also revealed that trust in the leader partially mediated the relationship between transformational leadership and satisfaction with the leader. These ndings are consistent with those of Jung and Avolio (2000) and show that transformational leadership has unique effects on followers satisfaction with the leader. It might be the case that these unique effects stem from the capacity of transformational leadership, presumably due to its charismatic components (i.e. idealized attributes and behaviors), to evoke admiration of and identication with the leader. The results revealed that psychological empowerment mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and the leaders ratings of the in-role performance of their followers. This nding is consistent with Shamir et al.s (1993) theory which states that the transformational effects of charismatic leadership are due, in part, to changes in the self-concept of followers. More specically, Shamir et al. (1993) regarded transformational leadership as directly affecting followers sense of competence, their values, their ability to control their environment, and their perception of task meaningfulness, all of which are components of the empowerment measure used in this study. It is noteworthy that the in-role performance of followers was more closely related to empowerment than to trust in the leader. 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 inuence how followers perceive and perform their work. In sum, these ndings have demonstrated that mediators can have specic effects on different outcome variables. The results have several important implications for leadership theorists and leadership practitioners. First, it appears that in order to improve in-role performance and satisfaction with the leader, followers need to be empowered and to trust their leaders. The ndings indicate that empowerment leads to improved performance, but not job satisfaction. In contrast, trust leads to greater job satisfaction, but not performance. The implications of the ndings for leadership theorists are that a ne-grained approach is required to understand the leadership black box in that different mediators were found to affect different outcomes. Specically, a ne-grained approach would recognize the likelihood of some mediators (e.g. self-efcacy) having effects on specic outcome variables (e.g. extra effort) that are distinct from the effects of other

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

Leadership and follower

15

LODJ 28,1

16

Future research Future research needs to incorporate other variables that affect important outcome variables. The current study could be extended, for example, by including the personality of the followers because it is well established that aspects of personality (e.g. neuroticism) inuence ones propensity to trust. Moreover, other aspects of personality, such as growth need strength (Hackman and Oldham, 1980) inuence reactions to empowerment. Finally, as mentioned earlier, qualitative methodologies would be useful for examining processual issues associated with transformational leadership and its effects on followers.
References Argyris, C. (1998), Empowerment: the emperors new clothes, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 76 No. 3, pp. 98-105. Avolio, B., Zhu, W., Koh, W. and Bhatia, P. (2004), Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25, pp. 951-68. Bandura, A. (1977), Self-efcacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioural change, Psychological Review, Vol. 84, pp. 191-215. Bass, B. (1985), Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations, Free Press, New York, NY. Bass, B. (1990), From transactional to transformational leadership: learning to share the vision, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 18, pp. 19-31. Bass, B. and Avolio, B. (1993), Transformational leadership and organizational culture, Public Administration Quarterly, Vol. 17, pp. 112-21. Bass, B. and Avolio, B. (1994), Improving Organizational Effectiveness through Transformational Leadership, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Bass, B., Waldman, D., Avolio, B. and Bebb, M. (1987), Transformational leadership and the falling dominoes effect, Group and Organization Studies, Vol. 12, pp. 73-87. Bennis, W. and Nanus, B. (1997), Leaders: Strategies for Taking Charge, Harper Business, New York, NY. Burns, J. (1978), Leadership, Harper & Row, New York, NY. Butler, J. and Cantrell, R. (1984), A behavioral decision theory approach to modeling dyadic trust in superiors and subordinates, Psychological Reports, Vol. 55, pp. 19-28. Casimir, G., Waldman, D., Bartram, T. and Yang, S. (2006), Trust and the relationship between leadership and follower performance: opening the black box in Australia and China, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 12, pp. 72-88. Chin, W. (1998), The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling, in Marcoulides, G. (Ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London, pp. 295-336. Conger, J. and Kanungo, R. (1988), The empowerment process: integrating theory and practice, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 471-82. Conger, J., Kanungo, R. and Menon, S. (2000), Charismatic leadership and follower effects, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21, pp. 747-59. Cook, J. and Wall, T. (1980), New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment and personal need non-fulllment, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 53, pp. 39-52. Curtis, J. (1999), Call-centers must adapt their ways, Marketing, Vol. 22, pp. 33-41.

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

Leadership and follower

17

LODJ 28,1

18

Pillai, R., Schreisheim, C. and Williams, E. (1999), Fairness perceptions and trust as mediators for transformational and transactional leadership: a two-sample study, Journal of Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 897-933. Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Moorman, R. and Fetter, R. (1990), Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers trust in leader, satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviors, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 107-42. Seibert, S., Silver, S. and Randolph, W. (2004), Taking empowerment to the next level: a multiple-level model of empowerment, performance, and satisfaction, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47, pp. 332-50. Shamir, B., House, R. and Arthur, M. (1993), The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: a self-concept based theory, Organization Science, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 577-94. Spector, P. (1986), Perceived control by employees: a meta-analysis of studies concerning autonomy and participation at work, Human Relations, Vol. 39 No. 11, pp. 1005-16. Spreitzer, G. (1995), Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement and validation, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38, pp. 1442-56. Spreitzer, G., Kizilos, M. and Nason, S. (1997), A dimensional analysis of the relationship between psychological empowerment and effectiveness, satisfaction, and strain, Journal of Management, Vol. 23, pp. 679-704. Taylor, E. (2000), Analyzing research on transformative learning theory, in Mezirow, J. and Associates (Eds), Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives on a Theory in Progress, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 185-217. Thomas, K. and Velthouse, B. (1990), Cognitive elements of empowerment: an integrative model of intrinsic task motivation, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 666-81. Walton, R. (1985), From control to commitment in the workplace, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 77-84. Whitener, E., Brodt, S., Korsgaard, M. and Werner, J. (1998), Managers as initiators of trust: an exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial behavior, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 513-30.

Further reading Adams, J. (1965), Injustice in social exchange, in Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 267-300. Avolio, B. and Bass, B. (1995), Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis: a multi-level framework for examining the diffusion of transformational leadership, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 6, pp. 199-218. Bandura, A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social-Cognitive View, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Barber, B. (1983), The Logic and Limits of Trust, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ. Bass, B. (1997), Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries?, American Psychologist, Vol. 52, pp. 130-9. Blau, P. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, John Wiley, New York, NY. Block, P. (1993), Stewardship, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA. Bromiley, P. and Cummings, L. (1993), Organizations with trust: theory and measurement, paper presented at the 53rd annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Atlanta, GA. Deci, E. and Ryan, R. (1985), The support of autonomy and control of behavior, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 53, pp. 1024-37.

French, J. and Raven, B. (1959), The bases of social power, in Cartwright, D. (Ed.), Studies in Social Power, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 150-67. Gabarro, J. (1987), The Dynamics of Taking Charge, Harvard Business School, Boston, MA. Gist, M. (1987), Self-efcacy: implications for organizational behaviour and human resource management, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 12, pp. 472-85. Hackman, J. and Lawler, E. (1971), Employee reactions to job characteristics, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 55, pp. 259-85. Herrenkohl, R., Judson, G. and Heffner, J. (1999), Dening and measuring employee empowerment, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 35, pp. 373-89. Huselid, M., Jackson, S. and Schuler, R. (1997), Technical and strategic human resource management effectiveness as determinants of rm performance, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 171-88. Kanter, R. (1977), Men and Women of the Corporation, Basic Books, New York, NY. Kanter, R. (1983), The Change Masters: Innovation and Entrepreneurship in the American Corporation, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY. Konovsky, M. and Pugh, S. (1994), Citizenship behavior and social exchange, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 656-69. Lawler, E. (1986), High Involvement Management, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. MacDufe, J. (1995), Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance: exible productions systems in the world auto industry, Industrial and Relations Review, Vol. 48, pp. 197-221. McGregor, D. (1967), The Professional Manager, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Peters, T. and Waterman, R. (1982), In Search of Excellence: Lessons from Americas Best-Run Companies, Harper & Row, New York, NY. Shamir, B. (1995), Social distance and charisma: theoretical notes and an exploratory study, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 19-47. Spreitzer, G. (1997), Toward a common ground in dening empowerment, Research in Organizational Change and Development, Vol. 10, pp. 31-62. Tracey, D. (1990), 10 Steps to Empowerment: A Common Sense Guide to Managing People, William Morrow, New York, NY. Vroom, V. (1964), Work and Motivation, Wiley, New York, NY. Waldman, D., Bass, B. and Einstein, W. (1987), Leadership and outcomes of performance appraisal processes, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 177-86. Waldman, D., Ramirez, G., House, R. and Puranam, P. (2001), Does leadership matter? CEO leadership attributes and protability under conditions of perceived environmental uncertainty, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 134-43. Corresponding author Timothy Bartram can be contacted at: t.bartram@latrobe.edu.au

Leadership and follower

19

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints