JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES

Vol. XXIII Number 4 Winter 2011: 409-425

Moderator or Mediator? Examining the Role of Trust in the

Transformational Leadership Paradigm
Vicki L. Goodwin

Professor of Management, Department Chair

University of North Texas

J. Lee Whittington

Professor of Management
University of Dallas

Brian Murray

Interim Dean, Associate Professor of Management

University of Dallas

Tommy Nichols

Assistant Professor of Management

Texas Wesleyan University

An examination of the leadership literature reveals that trust has been more frequently
cited in discussions of transformational leadership than any other leadership theory (Dirks
and Ferrin, 2002). Research described in a number of articles has examined the
relationship between transformational leadership and trust (Bass, 1985; Bass and Avolio,
1994; Dirks and Ferrin, 2002; Jung and Avolio, 2000; Podsakoff et al., 1996; Podsakoff et
al., 1990) identifying trust as an outcome (or correlate) among other outcomes of
transformational leadership (e.g., Avolio et al., 2004). Other research suggested a more
complex role for trust within the transformational leadership paradigm. Some have viewed
trust as a moderator within the context of situational influences in the transformational
leadership paradigm (e.g., Neeraj, 2009). Yet others have viewed trust as a mediator of the
relationship between transformational leadership and other outcomes (e.g., Jung and
Avolio, 2000). If trust acts as a moderator of the relationships between transformational
leadership and follower attitudes and behaviors, then the full potential of transformational
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXIII Number 4 Winter 2011

(409)

410

TRUST IN TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP

leadership may not be realized if trust is absent. On the other hand, if trust acts as a
mediator in these relationships, then it may not only be a direct outcome of
transformational leadership, but it also may explain how or why transformational
leadership relates to other outcomes as well. The purpose of this research is to conduct an
empirical analysis of the role of trust in the transformational leadership paradigm.
Relevant research is reviewed in the discussion that follows; the proposed hypotheses are
then presented.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF TRUST IN THE
LEADER-FOLLOWER RELATIONSHIP
Clear implications for the effect of trust in leadership on follower behavior have been
emphasized in publications in the popular management press (Kouzes and Posner, 2008;
Covey, 1990; Covey, 2008; Galford and Drapeau, 2003 a, b) and in scholarly research
articles (e.g., Mulder, 2009; Colquitt et al., 2007). Trust is not only important for sustaining
individual and organizational effectiveness (McAllister, 1995), but it also lies at the heart of
relationships and influences the behavior of each party toward the other (Robinson, 1996).
The leader-follower relationship is no exception. When subordinates trust a leader, they
are willing to be exposed to the leaders actions, and are certain that their interests will not
be abused (Mayer et al., 1995). If this trust is broken, it can have severe undesirable effects
(Dirks and Ferrin, 2002).
In the process of motivating followers to implement their shared vision,
transformational leaders become role models for their followers demonstrating what it
means to persevere and make self-sacrifices when needed (Jung and Avolio, 2000).
Through observation of their leaders, followers develop trust in them because of their
leaders personal commitment to achieving the vision. Furthermore, transformational
leaders empower and encourage followers to think for themselves, which instills trust in the
leader (Bass and Avolio, 1995). On the flip side, transformational leadership can involve
moving followers from the familiar to the unfamiliar. Followers may experience higher
levels of fear, anxiety, frustration, and uncertainty; all of which can be alleviated by the
trust they have in their leaders (Kotter, 1996).
Interpersonal trust can be described as an expectancy held by an individual that
another individual can be relied upon (Rotter, 1967). There are two types of interpersonal
trust cognition-based trust and affective-based trust (McAllister, 1995). Cognition-based
trust comes from knowledge of an individual that provides evidence of trustworthiness.
Affective-based trust comes from the emotional bonds between individuals. Followers of
transformational leaders are likely to have both types of trust in their leaders because of the
role-modeling they have observed in their leaders and the interpersonal ties that develop
between them.
The benefits from trust in the leader-follower relationship are significant, and trusted
leaders have a potential advantage over leaders who are not trusted by their followers
(Covey, 1990). Galford and Drapeau (2003a, b) discuss the importance of interpersonal
trust as a reciprocal process between leaders and followers. Covey (2008) states that when
this trust is absent, relationships and organizations pay a trust tax due to a lack of
candor, hidden agendas, and dysfunctional organizational politics. On the other hand,
when followers trust their leaders, they may exhibit more organizational citizenship
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXIII Number 4 Winter 2011

GOODWIN, WHITTINGTON, MURRAY, AND NICHOLS

411

behaviors that better equip the leader to accomplish the goals of the organization
(McAllister, 1995; Colquitt et al., 2007). Followers trust in the leader may boost their
confidence in the character of the leader, thus encouraging them to reciprocate with care
and concern for their leaders (Dirks and Ferrin, 2002). When followers trust their leaders,
they perform better and exhibit less counterproductive behavior that may come from their
intentions to quit (Colquitt et al., 2007).
The review of the literature that identifies the significance of trust in the leaderfollower relationship suggests that it is a key component of the transformational leadership
paradigm. In the paragraphs that follow, the specific focus will be on how trust has been
examined in its relationship with transformational leadership.
THE DIRECT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND TRUST
Transformational leadership is theorized to inspire followers to performance beyond
expectations by encouraging followers to transcend their own self-interests, raising their
level of consciousness concerning outcomes, and by raising or expanding follower needs
levels (Bass, 1985). This move to higher performance is accomplished through the use of:
(a) inspirational motivation, which is the ability to articulate an appealing, inspiring vision
to followers through the communication of high expectations; (b) idealized influence, or
charisma, which causes followers to identify with their leaders, admire them, and appeal to
their leaders on an emotional level; (c) intellectual stimulation, which stimulates innovation
and creativity while challenging the followers beliefs, encouraging dissent, and questioning
assumptions; and (d) individualized consideration, a behavior focused on attending to the
needs of followers. These behaviors have been linked to a number of positive outcomes
including satisfaction, productivity, and motivation (Bass, 1990).
Several studies have examined trust as an outcome (or correlate) of transformational
leadership among other individual and organizational outcomes. Podsakoff et al. (1990)
found that intellectual stimulation was negatively associated with a measure of trust that
assessed how fairly followers felt they were treated by their managers. Because intellectual
stimulation involves challenging the assumptions that support the status quo, they
suggested this result may be due to the association between intellectual stimulation and
higher levels of role ambiguity, conflict, and stress in the workplace; however, this
relationship may be unique to the short-term, becoming positive in the long-term.
Relationships between other dimensions of transformational leadership and trust were
positive. Gillespie and Mann (2004) computed an aggregate index of trust from scores on
measures of cognitive trust (Butler, 1991), affective trust (derived from McAllister, 1995),
and behavioral trust (constructed using Zands 1972 reciprocal model of trust) because of
high intercorrelations. They found that all components of transformational leadership
were positively correlated with trust although the correlation for intellectual stimulation
was lower than the others.
Podsakoff et al. (1996) assessed trust by asking followers how fairly they felt they were
treated by their managers. They found that when leaders provided an appropriate model,
individualized support, and fostered acceptance of group goals (all aspects of
transformational leadership), employee trust was higher. They also found, however, that
trust was associated with the greatest number of moderating effects (using the substitutes
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXIII Number 4 Winter 2011

412

TRUST IN TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP

for leadership model; Kerr and Jermier, 1978) more than other outcomes of
transformational leadership.
In a meta-analysis to summarize and evaluate primary relationships between trust in
leadership and 23 constructs, Dirks and Ferrin (2002) found a strong correlation (0.72)
between transformational leadership and trust. They suggest that the distinction between
transformational leadership and trust is unclear and should be examined further,
particularly focusing on measurement issues and on causal processes involved. However,
Dirks and Ferrin (2002) also found that trust was strongly related to attitudes (e.g., job
satisfaction and organizational commitment), followed by citizenship behaviors, and finally
job performance. These results are similar to those obtained for transformational
leadership and attitudes [satisfaction with the leader (Bycio et al., 1995; Podsakoff et al.,
1990); employees affective commitment to the organization (Bycio et al., 1995; Whittington
et al., 2004)], organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs; Whittington et al., 2004), and job
performance (Bass, 1985; Bass and Avolio, 1994; Hater and Bass, 1988; Keller, 1992;
Yammarino and Bass, 1990; Howell and Avolio, 1993; Whittington et al., 2004). Taken
together, results in these research studies suggest that the nomological network including
both trust and transformational leadership needs examination to clarify the appropriate
relationships between these constructs and those outcomes to which both have been linked.
Because both transformational leadership and trust have similar relationships to a variety
of outcomes, yet they also have a strong relationship with each other, a potential
clarification of the network of relationships may be obtained by examining trust as a
mediator.
TRUST AS A MEDIATOR
Trust has often been examined as a mediator in relationships between
transformational leadership and leader, follower, and/or organizational outcomes. Avolio
(1999) has claimed that the effect of transformational leadership on employee outcomes
such as performance and commitment is an indirect rather than a direct effect. In addition,
Yukl (1989) and Covey (1990) have both suggested that it is the trust that is engendered by
transformational leaders that creates the heightened levels of commitment and
performance associated with transformational leadership. Yukl (1989) suggests that
followers may be motivated by transformational leaders to perform beyond expectations
because followers trust and respect them. Podsakoff et al. (1990) consider follower trust in
the leader to be one of the most important variables that can mediate the effectiveness of
transformational leadership. As a mediator, trust is a direct outcome of transformational
leadership behavior, but it also explains how or why other outcomes occur when leaders are
transformational (Frazier et al., 2004). With partial mediation, there are other mechanisms
involved in the understanding of how or why the outcomes occur; whereas, with full
mediation, the mediator is the sole mechanism through which they occur. If trust does fully
mediate transformational-outcome relationships, its role becomes very significant in this
framework.
Research provides a number of results supporting trust as a mediator. Pillai et al.
(1999) find trust to be a key mediator of the relationship between transformational
leadership and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs). MacKenzie et al. (2001) also
find trust to mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and OCBs. Jung
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXIII Number 4 Winter 2011

GOODWIN, WHITTINGTON, MURRAY, AND NICHOLS

413

and Avolio (2000) provide evidence for trust as a mediator of the relationship between
transformational leadership and followers performance. In research by Pillai et al. (2003),
trust also mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and voting in the
2000 U. S. presidential election. The authors conclude that voters who rate their
candidates as transformational trust in them, which influences their decision to vote for
them. Furthermore, Farrell et al. (2004) find that when CEOs exhibit transformational
leadership, their top management team trusts them more, and this leads to the ability to
combine and exchange information (i.e., the top management team exhibits the ability to
acquire, integrate, and exploit new knowledge). Finally, Connell et al. (2003) provide
positive support for trust as a mediator of the relationship between transformational
leadership and turnover intention, affective commitment, and continuance commitment.
Although there is evidence for trust as a mediator in the transformational leadership
paradigm, another possible function for trust is that of a moderator. As a moderator, trust
would clarify conditions under which relationships between transformational leadership
and other outcomes occur.
TRUST AS A MODERATOR
Trust has been proposed as a potential moderator in the transformational leadership
paradigm (Bass, 1985; Bass and Avolio, 1994). The level of trust in the leader may explain
conditions under which transformational leadership is judged to be effective or not. That
is, trust, as a moderator, would clarify the boundaries within which the relationships
between transformational leadership and outcomes occur.
In recent research, Neeraj (2009) examined the moderating effect of trust on the
relationship between transformational leadership and job satisfaction. He found that when
employees had high levels of trust in their leaders, the relationship between
transformational leadership and job satisfaction was stronger than with lower levels of trust.
Thus, high trust enhanced this relationship, providing an additional boost to the positive
relationship expected between transformational leadership and job attitudes. Although
there is substantially less empirical work on the role of trust as a moderator in the
transformational leadership paradigm, it may be worth investigating further particularly
within the context of the current interest in pseudo-transformational leadership. Research
in pseudo-transformational leadership (see Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999; Nichols, 2008)
suggests leaders may appear to be transformational when they are not. Their motives are
not pure and their ethics are questionable, but they understand the value of behaving as
transformational leaders. To the degree followers are aware of their charade, these leaders
may not be trusted. Therefore, it is possible that these pseudo-transformational leaders,
while exhibiting transformational behaviors, may not produce positive outcomes because of
low trust.
This review of the literature supports the need to clarify the role of trust in the
transformational leadership paradigm. The intention of this research is to examine
competing theoretical models of trust relative to transformational leadership to produce an
empirically derived answer to this question. With the interest in transformational leadership over the last 35 years, it is incumbent upon researchers to identify any qualifications
for relationships between transformational leadership behavior and other variables just as
has been done for other leadership styles (e.g., Fiedler, 1967; House, 1971).
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXIII Number 4 Winter 2011

TRUST IN TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP

414

HYPOTHESES
Based upon the discussion above, two alternative hypotheses are proposed that are
developed to identify the best explanation for the role of trust in the transformational
leadership paradigm. This study allows the examination of both hypotheses within a single
context considering trust as a mediator versus trust as a moderator between
transformational leadership and individual outcomes commonly examined in their
relationships with transformational leadership. Previous research consistently reports
significant relationships between transformational leadership and performance and
attitudinal outcomes (Bass, 1985; Yammarino and Bass, 1990; Keller, 1992; Howell and
Avolio, 1993; Bass and Avolio, 1994; Hater and Bass, 1988; Bycio et al., 1995; Whittington
et al., 2004). Not only has transformational leadership repeatedly been associated with inrole performance, it also has long been associated with performance beyond
expectations, best captured by the extra-role behaviors associated with the organizational
citizenship behavior construct (OCB, Organ, 1988). Transformational leadership also has
been shown to consistently relate to positive emotional reactions as captured by the
affective commitment construct (Allen and Meyer, 1990). As these relationships are wellestablished, they are examined in this research with the inclusion of trust. Analyses of these
hypotheses allow for the examination of the direct relationship between transformational
leadership and trust. However, if trust mediates or moderates relationships between
transformational leadership and these outcomes that are consistently associated with it,
then trust takes on a different role in the transformational paradigm than these other
outcomes.
H1: Trust is a moderator of the relationship between transformational leadership
behavior and the outcomes of follower organizational citizenship behavior, affective
commitment, and performance.
H2: Trust is a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership behavior
and the outcomes of follower organizational citizenship behavior, affective
commitment, and performance.
METHODS
Subjects
The sample was obtained from organizations with which one of the investigators had
done extensive consulting. Subjects were from twelve different organizations representing a
variety of industries (e.g., manufacturing, government agencies and departments, and
health care), departments (e.g., production, accounting, and personnel), and position
levels (ranging from first-line supervisors to company president). No assumptions were
made relative to their leadership skills; rather they were chosen for participation in the
study as leaders based on their formal positions.
One hundred out of 140 managers completed the required questionnaires (71%
response rate). Each manager provided a list of up to ten direct report subordinates, from
which three were randomly selected. From the 420 subordinates selected, 209 participated
(50% response rate). The average number of subordinates per manager was 2.10.
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXIII Number 4 Winter 2011

GOODWIN, WHITTINGTON, MURRAY, AND NICHOLS

415

Performance for the 82 subordinates who did not respond to the questionnaires was
compared to those who participated. No significant differences were found between
groups. The majority of managers were white (87.7 %) and male (70.9 %), with an average
tenure in their organization of 10.5 years. Twenty-five percent of the managers were firstline supervisors, 50% were second-line managers, and 24.7 % were third-line managers or
above. The majority of subordinates were white (81.4 %) and male (65.7 %), with an
average tenure in their organization of 7.8 years, and with their present managers of 2.5
years. Forty-nine percent of the subordinates did not hold supervisory positions, 31.2%
were first-line supervisors, and 17.3% worked at the second level of management or higher.
Procedure
The managers received a packet containing an evaluation form to assess each
subordinates performance and organizational citizenship behavior, and a demographic
questionnaire. The subordinates were given packets containing a social-report instrument
for evaluating their managers leadership style, their level of trust in their manager, their
affective organizational commitment, and a demographic questionnaire. Both managers
and subordinates received detailed instructions for completing the instruments, and a
postage-paid envelope for returning the completed survey to the researchers. Each survey
was coded to allow matching of manager and subordinate responses, resulting in 209 dyads
that were used in the analyses.
Measures
Transformational leader behavior was assessed by subordinates responses to the subscales
in the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-5X; Bass and Avolio, 1994). Item
responses for each subscale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (frequently) were averaged to
obtain a total score ( = 0.88, 0.90, 0.89, and 0.91 for ascribed charisma, inspirational
motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration, respectively).
Because the hypotheses did not differentiate among the transformational leadership
subscales individually, the data were submitted to confirmatory factor analysis to validate a
single, global scale. The results from the confirmatory factor analysis strongly supported
the expectations. The model chi-square was not significant (2 = 0.99, p = 0.61), and the
fit statistics suggested a well-fit model (goodness-of-fit index = 0.996; adjusted goodnessof-fit index = 0.979; comparative fit index = 1.00; residual mean square error of
approximation = 0.00). Accordingly, besides those relationships previously defined for the
model, there was no indication of the need to designate relationships among the latent
scale variables, among the latent variables and other manifest scale scores, among the
latent variable error variances, or among the manifest variable error variances. Based on
these factor analytic results, the scale reliability estimates, and previous theoretical
development and studies validating the transformational leadership construct
dimensionality and subscales, it was concluded that the items used in the study measured a
single, global construct having four dimensions that were captured with the subscales of the
MLQ. In further analysis, a single scale was used to represent transformational leadership
( = 0.97). The scale was formed by calculating the factor scores of the first principal
component of a factor analysis of the four subscale scores, which yielded only one factor
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXIII Number 4 Winter 2011

416

TRUST IN TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP

with an eigenvalue greater than one (eigenvalue = 3.42; percent of variance = 85.61).
Interpersonal trust was measured using subordinate responses to an eight-item scale
consisting of two items modified from Earley (1986) and six items from a scale developed
by Podsakoff and associates (Podsakoff et al., 1990). The items from Earley (1986) are "I
place a great deal of trust in my manager" and "I am willing to rely on my manager." The
items from the Podsakoff et al. (1990) scale included items such as "I feel quite confident
that my leader will always treat me fairly." This measure of interpersonal trust was chosen
because the focus was on the relationship between the leader and follower and how the
followers trust in the leader might relate to the transformational leadership-outcome
relationship. Each of the items in the scale was measured on a seven-point scale ranging
from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree). A total score for trust was derived by
averaging across the eight items. Coefficient alpha for trust was 0.96.
To establish that the measure of transformational leadership was sufficiently
differentiated from the measure of trust, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was
conducted to compare a one-factor to a two-factor latent variable model. The transformational leadership latent variable was constructed as described previously, and the
trust variable was constructed as a single latent variable with eight manifest variables. In the
first step, a CFA model was calculated with two latent variables. In the second step, a CFA
model was calculated with a single, global latent variable. The change in chi-square and fit
statistics was examined for an improvement in the two-factor relative to the one-factor
model. The results demonstrated that a two-factor model was a statistically significant
improvement over a one factor model according to the change in chi-square
(2(1)=169.59, p<0.01; GFI=0.20; CFI=0.10; RMSEA=0.08).
Affective organizational commitment was measured using subordinate responses to the
eight-item affective commitment dimension in the organizational commitment scale
developed by Allen and Meyer (1990). Each item was measured on a seven-point Likert
scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree) ( = 0.83).
Manager evaluations of subordinates organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) were
obtained from a 24-item social report scale adapted from Podsakoff et al. (1990), which
measures five facets of OCB (Organ, 1988). Each of these items was measured using a
seven-point Likert scale ranging from (1) Strongly Disagree to (7) Strongly Agree. Because
responses to this scale did not meet the response distribution assumption for confirmatory
factor analysis (i.e., they were not normally distributed), an exploratory factor analysis was
conducted, which yielded only one factor with an eigenvalue greater than one. Therefore,
total score measures were used in the analysis, and were obtained by averaging responses
across all items ( = 0.95).
Subordinate performance was measured using a fixed-sum-weighted, Likert-type interval
scale on three dimensions: quality of work, quantity of work, and promotability to the next
level. For each of the items, managers were asked to indicate the percentage of time the
subordinates performance fell into one of four categories (Category 1 Unsatisfactory:
Needs to improve substantially; Category 2 Questionable: Needs some improvement;
Category 3 Satisfactory: Meets normal expectations; Category 4 Outstanding:
Substantially exceeds normal perfor-mance). Category 1 was coded as 0, Category 2 as 1,
Category 3 as 2, and Category 4 as 3, weighting each category by the percent of time
reported by the manager (accounting for 100% of the subordinates performance time).
The resulting score for the employee on each dimension was the weighted average category
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXIII Number 4 Winter 2011

GOODWIN, WHITTINGTON, MURRAY, AND NICHOLS

417

level. Although this procedure is cognitively more difficult for managers to use, it forces
them to explicitly assess the amount of time that the employees performance falls into
each category, and reduces the likelihood of leniency and halo rating errors (Bernardin,
1978). A statistical advantage of using a fixed-sum-weighted, Likert-type interval scale is
that it produces a weighted average for each subject, and, consequently, is a continuous,
rather than discrete, measure. Because the three dimensions are scored independently, the
dimension scores can be evaluated for internal reliability using common indices, like
Cronbachs alpha, and the dimension scores can be summed to an overall scale score.
Summing the weighted evaluations of the three performance dimensions created a
composite score for performance ( = 0.92).
RESULTS
The analysis proceeded in three steps. First, prior to the analysis of the hypotheses,
the question of whether the effects of supervisors who reported for multiple subordinates
(i.e., aggregate within supervisor) should be fixed was examined. Second, to test the
moderation hypotheses, a structural equations path analysis composed of main and
interaction variables was constructed. An examination of whether trust moderated the
relationship between transformational leadership and the outcome variables was conducted
by testing the change in chi-square between an unconstrained model including the
interaction term and a constrained model omitting the interaction variable. Third, the
mediation hypotheses regarding whether trust mediated the effect of transformational
leadership behaviors on the outcome variables were tested using the path analysis. Tests
were calculated by applying a bootstrapping procedure to estimate direct and indirect
effects along with their associated standard errors and significance levels (Efron and Gong,
1983; Efron and Tibshirani, 1993).
Pre-analysis
Because 31% of the supervisors reported performance and organizational citizenship
behaviors for more than one subordinate (mean = 1.35), Hausman tests (Hausman, 1978)
were completed for each of the three outcome variables. A Hausman test addresses the
question of whether there is a group level systematic effect, which determines whether a
regression should be estimated as a fixed or random effects model. In this case, an
examination was conducted to determine whether there was a need to control for
supervisor means. The results showed that each test for the three outcome variables yielded
a p-value greater than 0.05; therefore, a random effects regression without dummy
variables to fix effects by supervisor was used.
Hypothesis Tests
Prior to testing specific hypotheses, the descriptive statistics and correlations were
examined (see Table 1). It was found that trust correlated positively with transformational
leadership behaviors, and both of them correlated with each of the outcome variables as
expected. It also was observed that organizational citizenship behavior ratings correlated
strongly with performance ratings (r = 0.70, p < 0.01) potentially in part because they both
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXIII Number 4 Winter 2011

418

TRUST IN TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP

were collected from the supervisor, and the interaction variable correlated strongly with
trust (r = -0.51, p < 0.01) and moderately with transformational leadership (r=-0.36,
p<0.01) due to the variable construction. Consequently, covariances were estimated in the
path analysis for these variables.
Hypothesis 1. To prepare the data for testing the moderating hypotheses, the process
described by Aiken and West (1991) for centering data to mitigate the effect of collinearity
of main effect variables with interaction terms was used. The data were centered by creating
standardized z-scores for both the independent and dependent variables. Accordingly, the
results were interpreted as standard deviation changes or standardized regression
coefficients. An interaction variable also was created by multiplying the standardized scores
for the trust variable with the transformational leadership behavior variable.
To examine the moderating relationship hypothesis, a nested testing procedure was
employed. First a structural path model including both the main effect and interaction
term was conducted. A chi-square statistic for the path model was calculated and acceptable
fit statistics were found (2(2) = 0.38, p > 0.83; GFI = 1.00; CFI = 1.00; RMSEA = 0). Then
the analysis for a constrained model was repeated by specifying the interaction variable
path coefficients to equal zero. The change in 2 was examined to determine whether there
was a significant change in fit of the model to the data, and it was found that there was not
( 2(3) = 5.48, n.s.; GFI = 0.01; CFI = 0; RMSEA = 0.04). In corroboration of this
conclusion, it also was observed that no path coefficient in the unconstrained model
showed significance for the interaction variables. Based on these results, it was concluded
that there was no evidence of a moderating role for trust in the relationship between
transformational leadership and each of the outcome variables; thus, there was no support
for Hypothesis 1.
Hypothesis 2. To test whether trust mediated the relationship between
transformational leadership behaviors and the outcome variables, direct and indirect
coefficients from the previously described constrained path model were examined, and bias
corrected standard errors and significance tests were produced using bootstrapping (Efron
and Gong, 1983; Efron and Tibshirani, 1993), which has been recommended as a
preferred alternative to traditional hierarchical regression testing for mediation
(Mallinckrodt et al., 2006; Shrout and Bolger, 2002). The bootstrap results were generated
using a sample of 10,000 from which standard errors were estimated in order to calculate
bias-corrected confidence intervals and test the direct and indirect effects. The results for
the mediation-only constrained path analysis are provided in Table 2 and Figure 1.

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXIII Number 4 Winter 2011

s.d.
21.02
9.64
1.41
11.54
35.00
1.21
0.23
0.70
0.41
0.24
-0.29

0.25
0.48
0.45
-0.37

Correlations
1

0.46
0.31
-0.19

0.59 ***

R2

OCB
Indirect
0.43 **

* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001

a 2
(5) = 5.86, p > 0.32; GFI = 0.98; CFI = 1.00; RMSEA = 0.04

0.19 **

Direct
Direct
0.77 *** -0.19
0.56 **

Trust

Direct
-0.11
0.54

0.22 **

**

Indirect
0.42 **

Performance

0.77
-0.51

-0.36

0.25 ***

Direct
0.20
0.33 *

Indirect
0.25 *

Affective Comm.

Table 2
Path Coefficients for Standardized Variables: Constrained Mediation-Only Modela

* |r| > 0.21, p < 0.05; n = 88

OCB
Affirmative Commitment
Performance
Trust
Transformational
Trust by Transformational

Transformational
Trust

1
2
3
4
5
6

Mean
122.35
38.78
9.39
41.49
154.44
0.76

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics

GOODWIN, WHITTINGTON, MURRAY, AND NICHOLS

419

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXIII Number 4 Winter 2011

TRUST IN TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP

420

Figure 1
Model of Mediating Role of Trust between
Transformational Leadership and Outcomes

0.56**

Transformational
Leadership

0.77**

Organizational
Citizenship
Behavior

0.54**
Performance

Trust

0.33**

Affective
Commitment

The resulting path model indicated that transformational leadership was significantly
related to trust (b=0.77, p<0.001), but was not significantly directly related to any of the
outcome variables (all p>0.05). Transformational leadership, however, was found to be
indirectly related, and fully mediated by trust, in its relationship to each of the outcome
variables (b(OCB)=0.43, p<0.01; b(performance)=0.42, p<0.01; b(affective commitment)=0.25, p<0.05).
Based on what was observed in the analysis, the mediation hypothesis was fully supported
by the data. Therefore, trust is not simply an outcome of transformational leadership, but is
the basis for its influence on these individual level outcomes when all are considered within
the same paradigm.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to discern the role of trust in the transformational
leadership paradigm, including the examination of three follower outcome variables. The
results extended previous research on transformational leadership and trust. First, no
support was found for the role of trust as a moderator of the relationship between
transformational leadership and follower outcomes. Second, the results of the regression
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXIII Number 4 Winter 2011

GOODWIN, WHITTINGTON, MURRAY, AND NICHOLS

421

analyses used in this study supported past research that examined trust as a mediator in
relationships between transformational leadership and various outcome variables (e.g.,
Podsakoff et al., 1990; Pillai et al., 1999; Jung and Avolio, 2000; MacKenzie et al., 2001;
Connell et al., 2003). Specifically, trust was found to fully mediate the relationships between
transformational leadership behavior and organizational citizenship behavior,
performance, and affective commitment.
Although trust is clearly positively related to transformational leadership and could be
considered as simply another outcome of it, results from this research suggest a more
significant role for trust in the transformational framework. Transformational leaders are,
first of all, trusted by their subordinates, who in turn display positive job attitudes as well as
positive intra- and extra-role performance. The results support Avolios (1999) contention
that the impact of transformational leadership on followers is not direct. Furthermore, that
trust provides the conduit for this impact on follower outcomes has been confirmed.
Significant confidence can be placed in the present findings for a number of reasons.
First, the results of this study provide added veracity because the use of multiple data
sources eliminates the problems of monomethod bias, which are often an issue in similar
studies. Common method variance is avoided by measuring the outcome variables through
differing data sources; the managers rate organizational citizenship behaviors and
performance, while the subordinates rate affective commitment. Second, validated, widelyused scales are utilized in this study, strengthening the reliability of the results. Third, a
bootstrapping technique is employed that improves on earlier published analyses, which
primarily employed standard multiple regression analysis. Shrout and Bolger (2002; see
also Mallinckrodt et al., 2006) demonstrate that bootstrap techniques (Efron and
Tibshirani, 1993) are preferable to hierarchical normal theory approaches (e.g., Baron and
Kenny, 1986) because of the greater power that is retained in the analysis.
Although trust was not found to moderate the relationships in this model, additional
work should continue to examine this role of trust in the transformational leadership
paradigm. First, theory and empirical research suggest researchers have more to learn
about trust and its potential to affect relationships between transformational leadership
and valued individual/organizational outcomes (Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999; Neeraj, 2009).
Second, trust is a complex construct. Other aspects of trust are not considered in this study,
such as propensity to trust, benevolence, and integrity (Mayer et al., 1995). Third, trust is
measured from the subordinates perspective, asking whether or not the subordinate trusts
the leader. A different perspective, however, may shed light on the matter. How does the
subordinate perceive the level of trust the leader has in him or her? Does this perception
make him or her more likely to follow the leader, and does it affect subordinate attitudes
and behavior? Brower et al. (2009) find that when subordinates are trusted by their leaders,
they exhibit higher levels of OCBs and task performance, and have lower levels of
intentions to quit. They suggest that when leaders trust subordinates, they engage in higher
quality interactions that cause subordinates to feel empowered and confident, and that
improve their feelings of loyalty toward the organization. As a result, they exhibit more
positive and less negative behaviors in the workplace. Furthermore, what if a leader trusts a
subordinate, but the subordinate does not trust the leader, or vice-versa (Brower et al.,
2000)? Brower et al. (2009) have just begun an investigation of the significance of how any
discrepancies in trust influence the role it plays in the transformational leader-follower
relationship.
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXIII Number 4 Winter 2011

422

TRUST IN TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP

Future research may consider utilizing all forms of trust to develop an inclusive
measure or perhaps study each of these aspects of trust individually in a study similar to the
one reported here. In this research, the relationships among transformational leadership,
trust, performance, organizational citizenship behavior, and affective commitment were
examined. There are a wealth of various other leader, subordinate, and organizational
outcomes that may be considered, such as satisfaction, loyalty, implicit leadership theories,
ethics, absenteeism, turnover, deviant workplace behavior, communication, office politics,
conflict resolution, as well as organizational culture, structure, and productivity.
It is likely that the quality of the relationship between the leader and the follower also
plays a role. The quality of the relationship is the focus of leader-member exchange (LMX)
theory, and high quality relationships focus on mutual trust, loyalty, and behaviors that
extend beyond the employment contract. Indeed, the role-taking, role-making, and role
routinization of LMX are essentially part of a trust-building process. Trust and LMX have
been found to be strongly correlated (Dirks and Ferrin, 2002; Whittington, 1997); however,
trust is not a proxy for LMX, but rather a consequence (Brower et al., 2000). The
perception of subordinates that their leader trusts them may moderate the relationship
between trust derived from LMX and various outcome variables. Future research should
continue to examine the role of trust and the quality of leader-follower relationships on the
relationship between leader behavior and subordinate outcomes.
Although it was not directly addressed in the present research, the effort required to
build trust between a leader and his or her followers requires a leader to be authentic.
Authentic leaders are characterized as hopeful, optimistic, resilient, and transparent. These
leaders are described as moral/ethical, future-oriented individuals who make the
development of others a priority (Fry and Whittington, 2005). By being true to their own
values, acting in ways that are consistent with those values, and communicating clearly,
authentic leaders earn their followers trust and develop them into leaders themselves.
Unfortunately, some leaders who are driven to achieve do not concern themselves with the
development of their authenticity. These leaders do not operate from the same valuecentered foundation that authentic leaders do. Their attempt to mask their inadequacies,
cultivate a certain persona they want to project, and close themselves off from others (Bass
and Steidlmeier, 1999; Price, 2003) fosters mistrust and a sense of disconnection with
followers. Thus, leader authenticity may shed some light on the role of trust in the
transformational leadership paradigm (Nichols, 2008).
The findings from this study advance understanding of the relationship between
transformational leadership behaviors, follower attitudes and performance, and the level of
trust followers have in their leader. Whereas many organizational managers and leaders
spend significant time and money learning how to enhance their leadership styles, these
results indicate those efforts must be coupled with behaviors that will create high levels of
trust with their followers to ensure the most positive outcomes. Because of the complexity
of trust, however, further research is required to incorporate additional operationalizations
of trust, additional follower and organizational outcomes, and new conceptualizations of
leadership that incorporate the potential dark side to transformational leadership (e.g.,
authentic and pseudo-transformational leadership). There are many intriguing questions
yet to be answered concerning trust and transformational leadership.

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXIII Number 4 Winter 2011

GOODWIN, WHITTINGTON, MURRAY, AND NICHOLS

423

References
Aiken, L. S. and S. G. West. 1991. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Allen, N. and J. Meyer. 1990. The Measurement and Antecedents of Affective,
Continuance and Normative Commitment to the Organization. Journal of Occupational
Psychology 63: 1-18.
Avolio, B. 1999. Full Leadership Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
, W. L. Gardner, F. L. Walumbwa, F. O. Luthans, and D. R. May. 2004. Unlocking
the Mask: A Look at the Process by Which Authentic Leaders Impact Follower
Attitudes and Behavior. The Leadership Quarterly 15: 801-823.
Baron, R. and D. Kenny. 1986. The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social
Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations. Journal
of Applied Psychology 51: 1173-1182.
Bass, B. M. 1985. Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York: The Free Press.
. 1990. From Transactional to Transformational Leadership: Learning to Share the
Vision. Organizational Dynamics 18 (3): 19-31.
and B. Avolio. 1995. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (5x). Palo Alto, CA:
Mind Garden.
and . 1994. Improving Organizational Effectiveness through Transformational
Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
and P. Steidlmeier. 1999. Ethics, Character, and Authentic Transformational
Leadership Behavior. The Leadership Quarterly 10: 181-217.
Bernardin, H. J. 1978. The Effects of Rater Training on Leniency and Halo Errors in
Student Rating of Instructors. Journal of Applied Psychology 63: 301-308.
Brower, H. H., S. W. Lester, M. A. Korsgaard, and B. R. Dineen. 2009. A Closer Look at
Trust Between Managers and Subordinates: Understanding the Effects of Both
Trusting and Being Trusted on Subordinate Outcomes. Journal of Management 35:
327-347.
, F. D. Schoorman, and H. H. Tan. 2000. A Model of Relational Leadership: The
Integration of Trust and Leader-Member Exchange. The Leadership Quarterly 11: 227250.
Butler, J. K. 1991. Toward Understanding and Measuring Conditions of Trust: Evolution
of a Conditions of Trust Inventory. Journal of Management 17: 643-663.
Bycio, P., R. Hackett, and J. Allen. 1995. Further Assessments of Basss (1985)
Conceptualization of Transactional and Transformational Leadership. Journal of
Applied Psychology 80: 468-478.
Colquitt, J. A., B. A. Scott, and J. A. LePine. 2007. Trust, Trustworthiness, and Trust
Propensity: A Meta-Analytic Test of Their Unique Relationships with Risk Taking and
Job Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 92: 909-927.
Connell, J., N. Ferres, and T. Travaglione. 2003. Engendering Trust in ManagerSubordinate Relationships. Personnel Review 32: 569-587.
Covey, S. 1990. Principle-Centered Leadership. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Covey, S. M. R. 2008. The Speed of Trust. New York: Free Press.
Dirks, K. T. and D. L. Ferrin. 2002. Trust in Leadership: Meta-Analytic Findings and
Implications for Research and Practice. Journal of Applied Psychology 87: 611-628.
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXIII Number 4 Winter 2011

424

TRUST IN TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP

Earley, P. 1986. Trust, Perceived Importance of Praise and Criticism, and Work
Performance: An Examination of Feedback in the United States and England. Journal
of Management 12: 457-473.
Efron, B. and G. Gong. 1983. A Leisurely Look at the Bootstrap, the Jackknife, and Cross
Validation. The American Statistician 37: 36-48.
and R. Tibshirani. 1993. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. New York: Chapman and
Hall/CRC.
Farrell, J. B., P. C. Flood, S. MacCurtain, A. Hannigan, J. F. Dawson, and M. A. West.
2004. CEO Leadership, Top Team Trust and the Combination and Exchange of
Information. Irish Journal of Management 26: 22-40.
Fiedler, F. E. 1967. A Theory of Leader Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Frazier, P. A., A. P. Tix, and K. E. Barron. 2004. Testing Moderator and Mediator Effects
in Counseling Psychology. Journal of Consulting Psychology 51: 115-134.
Fry, L. W. and J. L. Whittington. 2005. In Search of Authenticity: Spiritual Leadership
Theory as a Source for Future Theory, Research, and Practice on Authentic
Leadership. In B. Avolio, W. Gardner, and F. Walumbwa (Eds.) Authentic Leadership:
Origins, Development and Effects. Monographs in Leadership and Management. New York:
Elsevier Ltd. 3: 183-200.
Galford, R. and A. Drapeau. 2003a. The Trusted Leader. New York: The Free Press.
and A. Drapeau. 2003b. The Enemies of Trust. Harvard Business Review, February.
Gillespie, N. A. and L. Mann. 2004. Transformational Leadership and Shared Values: The
Building Blocks of Trust. Journal of Managerial Psychology 19: 588-607.
Hater, J. and B. Bass. 1988. Superior Evaluations and Subordinates Perceptions of
Transformational and Transactional Leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology 73: 695702.
Hausman, J. 1978. Specification Tests in Econometrics. Econometrica 46: 1251-1271.
House, R. 1971. A Path Goal Theory of Leader Effectiveness. Administrative Science
Quarterly 16: 321-338.
Howell, J. and B. Avolio. 1993. Transformational Leadership, Transactional Leadership,
Locus of Control, and Support for Innovation: Key Predictors of ConsolidatedBusiness-Unit-Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 78: 891-902.
Jung, D. I. and B. J. Avolio. 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 2: 949-964.
Keller, R. 1992. Transformational Leadership and the Performance of Research and
Development Project Groups. Journal of Management 18: 489-501.
Kerr, S. and J. Jermier. 1978. Substitutes for Leadership: Their Meaning and
Measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 22: 375-403.
Kotter, J. P. 1996. Leading Change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kouzes, J. and B. Posner. 2008. The Leadership Challenge: How to Get Extraordinary Things
Done in Organizations, 4th Edition. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.
MacKenzie, S. B., P. M. Podsakoff, and G. A. Rich. 2001. Transformational and
Transactional Leadership and Salesperson Performance. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science 29: 115-134.
Mallinckrodt, B., W. T. Abraham, M. Wei, and D. W. Russell. 2006. Advances in Testing
the Statistical Significance of Mediation Effects. Journal of Counseling Psychology 53:
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXIII Number 4 Winter 2011

GOODWIN, WHITTINGTON, MURRAY, AND NICHOLS

425

372-378.
Mayer, R., J. Davis, and F. D. Schoorman. 1995. An Integrative Model of Organizational
Trust. Academy of Management Review 20: 709-734.
McAllister, D. 1995. Affect- and Cognition-Based Trust as Foundations for Interpersonal
Cooperation in Organizations. Academy of Management Journal 1: 24-59.
Mulder, L. 2009. Sanctions and Moral Judgments: The Moderating Effect of Sanction
Severity and Trust in Authorities. European Journal of Social Psychology 39: 255-269.
Neeraj, P. 2009. The Impact of Perceived Leadership Styles on Job Satisfaction and
Ethical Intentions of Employees: With Ttrust as a Moderator. Masters Thesis, Ming
Chuan University.
Nichols, T. 2008. Authentic Transformational Leadership and Implicit Leadership
Theories. Dissertation, University of North Texas.
Organ, D. 1988. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome. Lexington,
MA: Lexington Books.
Pillai, R., C. Schriesheim, and E. Williams. 1999. Fairness Perceptions and Trust as
Mediators for Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A Two-Sample Study.
Journal of Management 25: 897-933.
, E. A. Williams, K. B. Lowe, and D. I. Jung. 2003. Personality, Transformational
Leadership, Trust, and the 2000 U. S. Presidential Vote. The Leadership Quarterly 14:
161-192.
Podsakoff, P., R. MacKenzie, and W. Bommer. 1996. Transformational Leader Behaviors
and Substitutes for Leadership as Determinants of Employee Satisfaction,
Commitment, Trust, and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Journal of Management
22: 259-298.
, S. MacKenzie, R. Moorman, and R. Fetter. 1990. Transformational Leader
Behaviors and Their Effects on Followers Trust in Leader, Satisfaction, and
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly 1: 107-142.
Price, T. 2003. The Ethics of Transformational Leadership. The Leadership Quarterly 14:
67-81.
Robinson, S. L. 1996. Trust and Breach of the Psychological Contract. Administrative
Science Quarterly 40: 574-598.
Rotter, J. 1967. A New Scale for the Measurement of Interpersonal Trust. Journal of
Personality 35: 651-665.
Shrout, P. E. and N. Bolger. 2002. Mediation in Experimental and Nonexperimental
Studies: New Procedures and Recommendations. Psychological Methods 7: 422-445.
Whittington, J. L. 1997. An Integrative Model of Transformational Leadership and
Follower Behavior. Dissertation, University of Texas at Arlington.
, V. L. Goodwin, and B. Murray. 2004. Transformational Leadership, Goal
Difficulty, and Task Design: Independent and Interactive Effects on Employee
Outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly 15: 593-606.
Yammarino, F. and B. Bass. 1990. Transformational Leadership and Multiple Levels of
Analysis. Human Relations 43: 975-995.
Yukl, G. A. 1989. Leadership in Organizations. 3d ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Zand, D. E. 1972. Trust and Managerial Problem Solving. Administrative Science Quarterly
17: 229-239.

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XXIII Number 4 Winter 2011

The JMI in Brief

Volume XXIII Number 4

Winter 2011

Whats Really Important? Examining the Relative Importance of Antecedents to WorkFamily Conflict ......................................................................................................... 386
Michael B. Hargis, Lindsey M. Kotrba, Ludmila Zhdanova, Boris B. Baltes
Work-family conflict has become a major focus of research among
organizational scientists and a concern for the millions of adults who have to
balance the dual demands of work and family life. Prior research has identified
important antecedents to work-family conflict (WFC); however, little is known
about the relative contribution of these antecedents across types and forms of
WFC. This study extends prior research by exploring the relative importance
of theoretically meaningful antecedents across different types (time-, strain-,
and behavior-based) and forms (family-to-work and work-to-family) of WFC.
The studys results, based on a sample of working adults (N=289), suggest that
negative affectivity and job stressors are generally the most important
antecedents accounting for the majority of predicted variance (on average,
accounting for 40% and 29% of variance respectively). Other variables, such as
family stressors and number of children, are relatively less important (on
average, accounting for 7% and 1% of variance respectively).
Moderator or Mediator? Examining the Role of Trust in the Transformational Leadership
Paradigm .................................................................................................................. 409
Vicki L. Goodwin, J. Lee Whittington, Brian Murray, and Tommy Nichols
A field study of 209 leader-follower dyads was conducted to examine the role
of trust within the transformational leadership paradigm. Specifically, the goal
was to answer the question, Is trust simply an outcome of transformational
leadership or does it serve a more complex role as a moderator or a
mediator? Results from the analysis using a bootstrapping technique with
structural equation modeling revealed no support for the role of trust as a
moderator of the relationship between transformational leadership and a
variety of follower outcomes. However, trust fully mediated the relationships
between transformational leadership behavior and organizational citizenship
behavior, performance, and affective commitment.

(383)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.