Leadership, trustworthiness, and the mediating lens Article in Journal of Manage
ID: 398325 • Letter: L
Question
Leadership, trustworthiness, and the mediating lens
Article in Journal of Management Development · March 2007
"Purpose -The purpose of this research is to propose and empirically test hypotheses concerning the influence of leadership behaviors on interpersonal perceptions of trustworthiness. Design/methodology/approach -Survey research is employed to assess the dimensions of
leadership behavior and dimensions of trustworthiness and to determine the relationships among the
leadership behavior dimensions and trustworthiness dimensions. FindingS -Factor analyses support previous research advocating three dimensions of leadership behavior (relationship development, resource utilization, and image management) and three dimensions of trustworthiness (ability, benevolence, and integrity). A structural model (LlSREL), testing the relationship among the three leadership behavior dimensions and the three trustworthiness dimensions, shows that image management influences perceptions of all three dimensions of trustworthiness, and relationship development influences the benevolence dimension of trustworthiness. Using analysis of variance, the research finds that younger individuals view leaders as being more trustworthy than older individuals do.
Research limitations/implications -The limitations of this study include a survey research
methodology and a sample of university students. Practical implications -There are consequences to leaders' actions. This study shows that perceptions of trustworthiness can be influenced by leadership behavior.
Originality/value -Past research suggests that trustworthiness is an important component of a successful organization. This research supports the hypothesis that leadership behavior affects perceptions of trustworthiness, which is important to researchers and managers interested in how the behaviors of leaders influence other areas of the organization.
Keywords Trust, Leadership, Behaviour
In a world where the integrity of leaders is constantly being Questioned (O'hara, 2004), "a business leader's greatest battle today is to win the trust of stakeholders" (Beslin and Reddin, 2004). Building trust is acknowledged to be both an individual and an organizational level task (Beslin and Reddin, 2004; Schein, 2003) and the leader's role in creating a culture that integrates what the organization claims to believe and how it actually behaves is a critical element in optimizing organizational performance (Keller, 1995; Tucker and Russell, 20(4). Oketch (2004) has suggested that the successful "companies of the future will be those that base their mission and their corporate strategy around creating, measuring, an managing trustworthiness.
In this paper, we address how leadership behavior influences perceptions of interpersonal trustworthiness. We begin in the first section by defining key constructs and introducing our theoretical model of leadership behavior, explaining how the behaviors of leadership and the constructs of trustworthiness are integrated. In section 2 we present the research methodology that we use to measure leadership behaviour and trustworthiness and to test a series of hypotheses about both leadership behavior and trustworthiness. Section 3 reports the findings of our research. Contributions of our leadership behavior and trustworthiness model are identified in the fourth section, and opportunities for future research are included in the fifth section of this paper.
Theoretical background
Leadership behavior In (1997) An Integrative Theory 0/ Leadership, Chemers (1997) classified leadership tasks into three categories:
(1) relationship development -the interactions of the leader with stakeholders to develop relationships, identify desired outcomes, monitor the needs of those involved in achieving those results, and sustain high levels of personal commitment;
(2) resource utilization -the acquiring of financial resources, the balancing of competing demands, and the managing of resources efficiently to achieve goals; and
(3) image management -the melding of beliefs with one's actions to behave congruently with how one advertises, and thereby project an image that is consistent with followers' expectations (Chemers, 1997).
Chemers's review of these three management roles mirrored his assessment of the evolution of management thought about leadership and drew heavily on theoretical and applied research about leadership.
Chemers (1997) emphasized that leadership behaviors reflected how leaders perceived organization priorities and values, and incorporated the needs of leaders to deal with evolving and changing demands. Chemers's model acknowledged the importance of not only achieving the goals of the market place -the external adaptation (Schein, 2003) that measured the "effectiveness" of organizations -but also creating sustainable internal relationships -the internal integration (Schein, 2003) that measured "efficiency" or the degree to which individual needs of employees were met as they worked within the organization (Barnard, 1938).
Barnard had suggested that organizations achieved results based upon the "willingness of persons to contnbute efforts to the cooperative system" (Barnard, 1938). This willingness reflected the individual decision of each employee to relinquish personal choice on behalf of the organization (Barnard, 1938). Employees who surrendered their personal choice did so because they believed that they would ultimately benefit by achieving their personal goals. Barnard (1938) described this relinquishing of control the acknowledgement of the "authority" of organizational leadership, and Caldwell and Hansen (2005) equated Barnard's concept of authority with the decision to trust.
Barnard (1938) framed this "acceptance of consent of individuals" within a "zone of indifference" that reflected the degree to which followers accepted the authority of those who led. Nobel Award winner Herbert Simon (1997) called this willingness to follow a "zone of acceptance", and acknowledged it as a critical element of authority. Caldwell et al (2005) called this same concept the "zone of trust", which they defined as the boundaries within which followers "are willing to follow leaders and the degree to which they feel personal ownership regarding organizational goals and rules". Similarly, Tyler and DeGoey (1995) described the social model of trust as a function of the relationship between the individual and the person in authority - stating that the corporation inherent in trust "may play an especially important role when people's ------relationship to an authority is salient". It is within a context of trust that we briefly discuss the three-factor model of leadership identified by Chemers (1997).
Relationship development behaviors encompass a people-centered focus on leadership (Likert, 1961) that involves the ability to create personal connection with others regarding organizational goals and to thereby increase·bthers' ownership and commitment (Block, 1996). Within organizations, Maslyn and Uhl-Bien (2001) found that leaders who created the close dyadic partnerships involved in leader-member exchange (LMX) invested energy that increased the likelihood of improved long-term relationships and increased long-term trust (McAllister, 1995). Ireland et al (2006) noted that skill in building relationships was critical in creating internal social capital inside the finn and external social capital "between those working within a finn and others (individuals and organizations) outside the firm". Schoemaker and Jonker (2005) have noted that the creation of organizational social capital is "quintessential" to organizational effectiveness in the modern organization due to the "inter-affiliation and interdependency" of work processes and relationships. In relating relationship development to emotional intelligence, Daniel Goelman (2004) commented that the ability of leaders to create and maintain effective relationships creates "the social capital needed to pull the best out of people" - particularly when they are under pressure to produce results.
The leadership behaviors associated with resource utilization focus on job-centered leadership (Likert, 1961) with behaviors encompassed acquiring resources, directing subordinates with clear roles and goals, and enforcing standards (Lussier and Achua, 2004). Edwards (2000) confinned the importance of resource utilization as a key behavior of strategy formulation and organizational alignment in strategic leadership. Ireland et al (2006) emphasized that the resource acquisition element of strategic leadership encompassed creating human and social capital as well as financial resources, and called resources "the basis for a firm's competitive advantages and strategies". Resource utilization behaviors that build trust demand that leaders be efficient in the use of resources and effective in achieving organizational results, focusing on the long-term growth by "building an enduring company" rather than simply harvesting short-term results (Collins, 2001). The technical competence to best utilize resources is of critical importance, but those who lead effectively and merit stakeholder trust must be both knowledgeable and capable of innovatively utilizing those resources in a knowledge economy (Barrett, 1995).
The behaviors of image management require that leader behavior be congruent with what one proclaims, which is critical to the creation of trust (Leeds, 2003). Galford and Drape.au (2003a, b) explained that building trust requires the creating of organizational systems that reinforce the values, messages, and principles which an organization proclaims. In his discussion of Level 9Leadership, Collins (2001) clarified that the most successful organizational leaders combined the professional will to create superb organi7.ational results with personal humility that gave credit to others - explaining that the ambition of Level 5 leaders "is first and foremost for the institution, not themselves" (italics in the original). Similarly, Raelin (2004) concluded that the most effective leader "exhibits humility and seeks to serve others rather than power for its own sake". Although charismatic leadership may inspire others over the short term image management requires a sustainable ability to produce results and to follow proven principles over an extended period (C.aldwell et al, 2006). The leader's ability to create personal relationships that establish commitment and connection, effectively utilize resources, and demonstrate personal congruence with the factors viewed as consistent with effective leadership, merit, trust, and cooperation are the basis of the leader's "ability to achieve organi7.ational objectives through change" (Lussier and Achua, 2004). Consistent with our discussion of the importance of the three tasks of leadership provided by Chemers (1997), our first hypothesis focuses on the importance of these three tasks in defining leadership.
Hl. The tasks of leadership are identified in terms of resource utili7.ation, relationship development, and image management.
Understanding trustworthiness
The relationship between leader behavior and the trust decision is fraught with individual perceptual issues as followers interpret the implicit and explicit elements of the social contract and the values that social contracts incorporate (Caldwell et al, 2002; Rousseau, 1995). Barnett and Schubert (2002) identified the employment relationship that frames the leader-follower relationship as a series of psychological contracts that rise to the level of a "covenantal relationship". Rousseau (1995, 2003) confirmed the complex ethical implications of social contracts in organizational relationships and noted that these social contracts are contextually perceived and subjectively interpreted.
Thus the social contract is an individualized interpretation of the duties owed by each leader - perceived within a dyadic relationship involving the leader and each employee individually - that determines whether or not the leader is viewed as trustworthy (Barnett and Schubert, 2002). Pava (2003) suggested that the covenantal leader is an ethical steward who is perceived as seeking the best interests of each stakeholder while balancing these needs within a broader organizational context as well. C.aldwell et al (2002) had suggested that this balancing of organizational and individual priorities required the wisdom and moral foresight of an ethical steward who was deeply committed to each stakeholder.
Although trustworthiness is frequently confused with trust in the academic literature (C.aldwell and Hansen, 2005; Hosmer, 1995), one person trusts another when the second person is trustworthy (Hosmer, 1995; Mayer et al, 1995). In a leadership context, organizations need employees to trust their leaders and to comply with desired behaviors (Galford and Drapeau, 2003a, b). That trust is extended when leaders are deemed trustworthy, and Galford and Drapeau (2003b) noted that trust may be measured at the strategic level when leaders do the right things, at the organizational level when processes and decisions result in things being done correctly, and at the personal level when leaders create connections based upon a demonstrated commitment to each individual's well-being. Trustworthiness is a subjectively defined construct that is interpreted by each person at the individual level and at the organizational level (Bews and Rossouw, 2002; Caldwe11 and Qapham, 2003; Mayer et aL, 1995). Because trustworthiness is subjectively perceived, Caldwell and Clapham (2003) noted that each person makes the trust decision - a personal relinquishing of power to another person or group - based upon the behaviors perceived to be trustworthy through an individual mediating lens. Caldwell and Clapham (2003) provide Figure 1, which explains the relationship between trust and trustworthiness.
Trustworthiness at the individual level has widely been acknowledged as consisting of ability, benevolence, and integrity (Mayer et aL, 1995). Brower et al (2000) proposed that trustworthiness was linked to effective leader-member dyadic relationships and focused on Mayer et aL (1995) discussion of the propensity to trust. Similarly, a study by Gill et al (2005) identified ability, benevolence, and integrity as three keys that linked the propensity to trust and the intention to trust We take the position that trust is not a propensity, an attitude, or an intention but is an action requiring the relinquishing of control (Caldwell and Clapham, 2003; Caldwell and Hansen, 2005). We concur with the perspective that interpersonal trustworthiness is based upon the ability, benevolence, and integrity of the person to be trusted and is closely connected to leadership behaviors. Mayer et al (1995) defined ability as "that group of skills, competencies, and characteristics that enable a party to have influence within some specific domain". Other scholars suggest that ability is a measure of "competence" (Kee and Knox, 1970), and "expertness" (Giffen, 1967). Benevolence was defined as "the extent to which a trustee is believed to want to do good to the trustor, aside from an egocentric profit motive" (Mayer et al, 1995). Butler and Cantrell (1984) described as including a loyalty to the interests and well being of another individual. Integrity was defined by Mayer et al. (1995) as "the trustor's perception that the trustee adheres to a set of principles that the trustor finds acceptable». Hosmer (1995) emphasired that trustworthiness was inherently ethically based and identified ten separate ethical perspectives for assessing trustworthy behavior and the honoring of duties owed by those who seek to be trusted - the critical task of leaders in a world where distrust of leaders is increasingly
Mayer et aL (1995) emphasized that the propensity to trust varies within the trustor and 266 was dependent upon the behaviors of the person to be trusted. Gill et aL (2005} conducted two studies that confirmed the importance of ability, benevolence, and integrity as antecedents to trust, but also found that individual perceptions, the clarity or ambiguity of information, and the context of a situation impacted the trust decision. Das and Teng (2004} noted that the propensity to trust was not only subjectively determined but a •function of how one perceives the risks associated with the relationships between parties and was a function of the behavior of individuals who sought to be trusted. Consistent with the definition of interpersonal trustworthiness articulated by Mayer et aL (1995) and the evolving research about the antecedents to trust related to leadership effectiveness, we propose the following set of hypotheses: H3a. Leadership behaviors associated with resource utilization influence individuals' perceptions of the three elements of interpersonal trustworthiness of ability, benevolence, and integrity. H3b. Leadership behaviors associated with relationship development management
influence individuals' perceptions of the three elements of interpersonal trustworthiness of ability, benevolence, and integrity.
H3c. Leadership behaviors associated with image management influence
individuals' perceptions of the three elements of interpersonal trustworthiness of ability, benevolence, and integrity.
These suggested relationships between the behaviors of leadership and their impact on perceptions about leader trustworthiness have the potential to explicate how leadership behaviors can lead to increased interpersonal commitment and employee extra role behaviors that are key to wealth creation (Caldwell and Hansen, 2005}.
The rok of the meduzting lens
As indicated in Figure 1, the decision to trust encompasses one's perceptions about the degree to which the behavior of a leader is considered trustworthy. Leadership behaviors are individually perceived according to an individual subjective calculus (Kramer and Tyler, 1996). Caldwell and Clapham (2003) identified this mediating lens as consisting of six characteristics:
Conclusion
Leadership scholar Robert E. Quinn (2005) noted that leaders achieved "moments of greatness" when they enter what he described as the "fundamental state of leadership". Like great athletes who enter a "zone" or "flow" and are able to score at will in basketball, leaders who achieve this fundamental state about which Quinn has written are at their perfonnance peak because they have a heightened awareness of who they are, what needs to be achieved, and how they need to relate to others to achieve desired outcomes (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Leaders who achieve this fundamental state generate trust from others that is transformative, that builds both commitment, and that leads toward excellence in the performance of individuals and organizations (Quinn, 2005; Solomon and Flores, 2001).
Understanding more about the relationships between leadership behaviors and bow those behaviors are perceived is critical to building individual and organizational credibility (Kouzes and Posner, 2003), is important to creating organi?.ational wealth (Caldwell and Hansen, 2005), and is key to building organizations that optimize long-term profitability (Collins, 2001). In a world increasingly characterized as "the cheating culture" (Callahan, 2004), business leaders and society at large must closely examine the behaviors of its leaders and the values upon which individuals and organizations govern."
1) Define, discuss, and explain the independent variable that were used in this study and in your own words:
A) Leadership Behavior
1) Relationship development
2) Resource Utilization
3) Image Management
2) Define, discuss, and explain the mediating variable that was used in this study and your own words:
A) Interpersonal Trustwortiness
1) Ability
2) Benevolence
3) Integrity
2) Define, discuss, and explain the dependent variable used in this study and your own words.
A) Decision to Trust
Please help and thank you very much. I greatly appreciate it. =)
Explanation / Answer
1:
(a): It is anything but difficult to lead for yourself. It is more hard to lead for others. Genuineness, trustworthiness, and the capacity to be steady will make a more fruitful condition. We as a whole need to realize that our pioneers are meriting our trust. It's tied in with having trust in their insight into who and what they are driving, trust in why they have driven, and trust in their capacity to achieve the vision and objectives that have been put forth.
Another way pioneers can develop themselves and the general population around them is to recognize where relationship building can be kept up and where it very well may be reinforced. Associating with others is a standout amongst the best ways one can lead.
(b): Teams are comprised of people who have diverse standpoints and capacities, and are at various phases of their professions. Some may find that the errands you've dispensed to them are testing, and they may require bolster. Others might be "old hands" at what they're doing, and might search for chances to extend their abilities. In any case, it's your obligation to build up the majority of your kin.
Your aptitudes in this part of administration will characterize your long haul accomplishment as a chief. In the event that you can help colleagues to end up better at what they do, you'll be a chief who individuals seek to work for, and you'll make an awesome commitment to your association, as well.
The best method for building up your kin is to guarantee that you give consistent criticism to colleagues. A large number of us are anxious of giving input, particularly when it must be negative. Be that as it may, in the event that you give and get criticism frequently, everybody's execution will make strides.
(c): Great pioneers realize that a standout amongst the best approaches to keep up self-restraint amid troublesome occasions is to act like you have been there previously. Pioneers that demonstration to indicate they have experienced the critical thinking process various occasions previously are those with solid official nearness who approach the current issue with a feeling of style and beauty. Awesome pioneers realize that a standout amongst the best approaches to keep up levelheadedness amid troublesome occasions is to act like you have been there previously. Pioneers that demonstration to indicate they have experienced the critical thinking process various occasions previously are those with solid official nearness who approach the current issue with a feeling of tastefulness and elegance. They are understanding, they are attentive people, and they will really adopt a caring strategy to facilitate the hardships that any other individual is encountering.
They are there to quiet you down and give you trust that your concern will before long be understood. Focus on their disposition and how they are aces at mitigating your dissatisfactions. They generally act to demonstrate that they have been there previously; their self-control comforts your brain.
It's anything but difficult to lose self-restraint amid times of emergency and change on the off chance that you let concern transform into stress and stress transform into fear. By looking after self-restraint, the best pioneers try to avoid panicking, cool and in control – empowering them to advance back, basically assess the cards that they have been managed and confront issues head-on. A show of self-restraint additionally comforts those you lead and makes a sheltered and secure work environment culture where nobody require freeze despite difficulty., and they will truly adopt a caring strategy to facilitate the hardships that any other person is encountering.
2:
Ability , Benevolence and Integrity
Ability takes a gander at perspectives, for example, aptitudes, abilities, and so on and is area particular. Trust in view of ability does not really sum up to different circumstances. ability has over and over been appeared to be an essential factor in the appraisal of reliability. The most noteworthy hindrance to improvement of trust in this setting is the low apparent fitness of the business visionary.
Benevolence is the degree to which a trustee is accepted to intentionally do great to the trustor. Regularly, kindheartedness is seen as relationship particular and more applicable to connections between individuals instead of associations. All the more correctly, there is little open door for the firm to do great to the bank or to the bank administrator. This may be confirm by network association, for example, philanthropy work, schools, and nearby governmental issues, which might be connected to the impression of shared qualities. Kindness may likewise reach out to caring for representatives.
Integrity is the observation that the trustee holds fast to an arrangement of standards thought about adequate by the trustor. It is neither connection particular nor setting particular yet is individual particular. isn't connected to aptitudes or abilities or is it connection Morality and moral standards are components of the individual foundation.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.