1
Leadership Determinants of Trust
Sim Sitkin
Fuqua School of Business
Duke University
In collaboration withAllan Lind, Morela Hernandez, and Chris Long
2
What Influences Trust?
Various influences have been identifiedCompetence, benevolence, reliability, honesty, etc (e.g., Dirks &
Ferrin, Avoilio and colleagues)
Influences are generally consistent with the kinds of things leaders “should” do
But the links between specific leadership behaviors and trust has remained largely unexamined
Often asserted, rarely testedConceptualization is often vague and atheoretical, or very broad
Goal is to clarify the potentially important insights for both literatures
Present newly developed leadership approachMake the leadership-to-trust links explicit and specificPresent preliminary results of an early testDiscuss some implications
3
The “Leadership Challenge”
There is a substantial body of work on leadership, but there is not really a clear picture of what leadership is and how one can teach people to be better leaders.
Some scholars (e.g., Meindl, Ehrlich, & Dukerich) have even contended that leadership is not an important factor in organizational performance, that it is simply a “romanticized explanation” of more complex management and environmental factors.
4
How to Address the Challenge
Consider whether there is indeed something in the concept of leadership to theorize about, study, and teach
Organize our understanding of leadership and related phenomena so that we can systematically examine how leadership evolves as organizations change
5
Contemporary research and theory on leadership
Huge quantity and variety
Variable in focus and qualityEmpirically rigorous, but more usually managerial than leadership-
focused
Atheoretical and/or vague
Practitioner-oriented, but not very systematic or testable
Narrow, focusing on only one or two aspects of leadership
Theoretical, but are not very generative for rigorous scholarship or practical enough for managerial application
Some examplesTransformational leadership, Charismatic leadership, Symbolic
leadership, Attribution theories of leadership, Relational leadership
6
A preview of approach
Working with my colleagues Allan Lind and Chris Long (and additional colleagues, and including recent PhD students Jim Emery, Morela Hernandez, and Drew Carton), we have worked to organize and integrate this topic with an eye to empirical testing and implementation.
We have found ourselves incorporating & extending many elements used by other theories, but we have been most influenced by relational views of leadership and trust. Thus, today’s focus . . .
Before I begin presenting our theory and early results on the impact of leadership on trust, let me define it and give you a brief picture of our leadership framework.
7
Definition of Leadership
A leader is:A person who influences othersA person who exhibits specific leadership behaviorsA person who accepts a leadership role and identity
Leadership is:A set of behaviors and their effectsA social role A perspective or identity
Leadership is not:Formal authority or positionOnly positive (effective leaders can pursue evil)A set of traits that cannot be developed or modified or learned
(“you can’t teach height” but you can teach leadership)
8
Leadership versus Management
Not about leaders vs. managers, not different peopleMost individual roles involve elements of both leadership
and management
But both good leadership and good management are necessary for optimal organization performance
Leadership is not just about top organizational heroesIncludes leading up, down and laterally
Applies to a variety of life roles – leading peers, family members, community, leading oneself
9
How is the Approach Distinctive? Focus on Behavior:
Leadership is what you do, not just who you are. Change what you do and you can change your leadership style. Thus, the approach is testable and actionable.
Focus on Effects:
Each dimension is keyed to theorized effects of leadership behaviors.
Focus on Breadth and Integration:
Most leadership approaches focus on just a few aspects of leadership – ours tries to integrate the range of leadership dimensions – and effects.
10
Leadership domains
ETHICALETHICAL
INSPIRATIONALINSPIRATIONAL SUPPORTIVESUPPORTIVE
PERSONALPERSONAL RELATIONALRELATIONAL CONTEXTUALCONTEXTUAL
11
Core focus of the domains
Accepting Accepting responsibilityresponsibility
Raising Raising optimism optimism
& enthusiasm& enthusiasm
Providing Providing resources,resources,feedback, andfeedback, andprotectionprotection
PreparingPreparingand projectingand projecting
who you arewho you are
ShowingShowingconcern andconcern and
understandingunderstanding
ClarifyingClarifyingwho we arewho we areand how weand how wework togetherwork together
12
Consequences of effective leadership
TRUSTCREDIBILITY COMMUNITY
INITIATIVEHIGHASPIRATION
STEWARDSHIP
13
Leadership domains and effects
ETHICALETHICAL
INSPIRATIONALINSPIRATIONAL SUPPORTIVESUPPORTIVE
PERSONALPERSONAL RELATIONALRELATIONAL CONTEXTUALCONTEXTUAL
CREDIBILITY TRUST COMMUNITY
INITIATIVEHIGHASPIRATION
STEWARDSHIP
15
Definition of Trust
Trust is a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based on positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of another (Rousseau et al., 1998)
16
Foundation of the Model
Personal: Leadership emerges from the projection of your personal values, concerns, passions and world view.
Relational: Leadership is rooted in projecting concern for and understanding of others in interpersonal and inter-organizational relationships.
Contextual: Leadership simplifies and focuses by clarifying contexts.
17
Personal Leadership
Demonstrate that you have theinsight and knowledge to lead tosuccess.
Be real; let your values andpersonality show in your actions.
Make your dedication to the team--and your courage in pursuing itsgoals--evident to all.
19
Relational Leadership
Attend to your leader-followerrelationship with eachperson you seek to lead:
Show concern, understanding, and respect for others.
Be seen as fair.
21
Contextual Leadership
Create a sense of identity (pride and belonging).
Focus and simplify to build a sense of coherence.
Enhance clarity of roles and functions.
23
But our focus today is on leadership determinants of trust
TRUSTTRUST
What is the prediction from the literature about what influences trust?
25
Arguments Extrapolated from Trust Literature
Personal Leadership Affects TrustCompetence, shared values, personal interests are predictive of trust (Sitkin
& Roth; Mayer et al)
Attribution of leadership – passion, insight (Calder)
Relational Leadership Affects TrustLeadership as forms of relationship (Weber; Lewin; Kouzes & Posner)
Benevolence, caring, respect, fairness & understanding of the other (Bies; Lind & Tyler; Sitkin & Roth)
Contextual Leadership Affects TrustIncreased contextual control undermines trust in other party (Shapiro,
Zucker)
Symbolic leadership and the importance of congruent symbols (Pfeffer; Sitkin & Stickel)
Without formal protection, risk of opportunistic exploitation is too high (Sitkin; Lewicki & Bunker; Bijlmsma-Frankema & Costa; Long & Sitkin)
27
INSPIRATIONALINSPIRATIONAL SUPPORTIVESUPPORTIVE
PERSONALPERSONAL RELATIONALRELATIONAL CONTEXTUALCONTEXTUAL
ETHICALETHICAL
28More personal More structural
Foundation
Second-Order
Third-Order
Key theoretical assumption: interdependence of leadership domains
ETHICALETHICAL
INSPIRATIONALINSPIRATIONAL SUPPORTIVESUPPORTIVE
PERSONALPERSONAL RELATIONALRELATIONAL CONTEXTUALCONTEXTUAL
29
Leadership Framework Extends Argument to Make It More Directly Testable
Dimensions of Leadership are Mutually Facilitative
Personal & Contextual Leadership Affects Trust, but only through their link to Relational Leadership
Direct Links of Personal and Relational to Trust implied in the literature may be spurious, as indirect routes of influence never tested
31
Hypotheses
Higher levels of Relational Leadership are associated with greater Trust in the leader (H1).
Personal (H2A) and Contextual (H2B) Leadership will be significantly associated with Trust.
Personal (H3A) and Contextual (H3B) Leadership will be significantly associated with Relational Leadership.
The effects of Personal (H4A) and Contextual (H4B) Leadership on Trust will be mediated by Relational Leadership.
32
Sample and ProcedureParticipants completed the 360-degree survey online as part of
executive leadership courses (n=129)Weekend EMBA (n=55)
Cross Continent EMBA (n=52)
Open Enrollment (n=22)
Ratings supplied by supervisors, peers and direct reports (n= 700+)
Permission to use data for research requested, nearly all consented
Survey distributed & completed online (approx. 20 minutes to complete survey)
Participants received feedback as part of a course
Raters assured anonymity; ratings aggregated to preserve confidentiality of individual raters
38
Some Preliminary FindingsToday’s analysis based on data collected in July,
August, September of 2003.
Able to clean data and create appropriate scales
Analyzed using structural equation models (AMOS)
Still consider findings to be tentative - newly redesigned variables & results in but not yet analyzed.
But results seem quite robust, so optimistic
39
IV Scales created from “follower” perceptions of leader behaviors
DV Scales created from “follower” ratings of leader effects across three rater groups
Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC)
ICC useful for determining the extent to which variance of individual responses are attributed to group membership
ICC assesses reliable differentiation between groups (Bliese et al., 2002; Castro, 2002)
ICC especially useful if between group variability is potentially theoretically important and requires detailed examination
Scale Reliabilities“The locus of leadership . . . involves behaviors . . . produced by leaders as these
elements are interpreted by followers.” (Lord & Maher, 1993; p.11)
Supervisors + Peers + Direct Reports: ICC = .862Peers + Direct Reports: ICC = .723
40
Independent Variables
Personal Leadership Behavior (α = .80) Authenticity - Creativity
Vision - Passion & Courage
Expertise
Relational Leadership Behavior (α = .81)Concern
Respect
Reliability
Contextual Leadership Behavior (α = .77)Coherence
Coordination
Identity
41
Personal Leadership Behavior (α = .80) Authenticity
Lets you know what he/she is really like.
Lives his/her values.
They are who they appear to be.
VisionProvides a clear vision for the organization or unit.
Formulates clear goals.
Articulates where the organization/unit is going.
ExpertiseReally understands our work.
Is smart about what we do.
Has deep expertise.
CreativityFinds innovative solutions to business problems.
Is open to exploring new ideas.
Thinks outside the box.
Passion and CourageIs passionate about the work we do.
Displays courage in the face of uncertainty.
Is not afraid to show his/her feelings.
Is not afraid of being wrong.
Is committed to doing what he/she thinks is right.
42
Relational Leadership Behavior (α = .81)
ConcernDisplays concern for me.
Is sensitive to my needs.
Cares about my priorities and interests.
Is interested in understanding me.
Shows compassion.
RespectShows respect for people regardless of their level in the organization.
Makes an effort to seek out others' opinions on important issues.
Takes the time to explain decisions.
Is a good listener.
43
Contextual Leadership Behavior (α = .77)
CoherenceMakes sure his/her employees understand business issues.
Promotes a shared understanding about complex issues.
Cuts through complex or ambiguous problems to make them easier to understand.
Explains why things are being done a particular way.
CoordinationHelps coordinate actions of unit or organization.
Resolves conflicts constructively.
Creates processes that facilitate the work.
Ensures that we take the needs of others into account as we do our work.
Makes clear how responsibilities are being divided.
44
Dependent Variables: Leadership Effects
Personal Leadership: LOYALTY (α = .86 )I feel loyal to ____. ____ can depend on me.I would go out of my way to help ____ if he/she asked me to.
Relational Leadership: TRUST (α = .80 )I trust ____ to be fair. ____ deals fairly with me. ____ is unbiased in his/her decisions.
Contextual Leadership: COMMUNITY (α = .87 )We are like family.People here are concerned with the success of the whole organization.I feel like I’m really part of the team around here.In this organization, we know we can depend on each other. Being a good organizational citizen is part of our organization culture.
45
Hypotheses
Higher levels of Relational Leadership are associated with greater Trust in the leader (H1).
Personal (H2A) and Contextual (H2B) Leadership will be significantly associated with Trust.
Personal (H3A) and Contextual (H3B) Leadership will be significantly associated with Relational leadership.
The effects of Personal (H4A) and Contextual (H4B) Leadership on Trust will be mediated by Relational leadership.
47
Statistical Methods
Structural Equation Model Analyses (AMOS 5.0 in conjunction with SPSS 11.5)
4 models are presented
Standardized Regression Weights are shown
Details (error terms etc) are not shown on models to simplify display for readability
Model Fit Indices TLI and CFI were considered
This is still very much a work in progress
48
TRUST
e11e10 e12
e13
Vision PassionExpertiseCreativity Authenticity
e1 e2 e3 e4 e5
Respect Concern
e6 e7
Coordination Coherence
e8 e9
Personal Ldrshp
Relational Ldrshp
Contextual Ldrshp
Model
49
Personal Ldrshp
Relational Ldrshp
Contextual Ldrshp
TRUST
Model Fit: TLI = .54; CFI = .66
.34** .26* .45***
Direct Effects Test of Trust Literature
50
Personal Ldrshp
Relational Ldrshp
Contextual Ldrshp
TRUST
Model Fit: TLI = .54; CFI = .66
.34**
.26* .45***
•Significance consistent with trust literature (H1, H2A & H2B)•Fit of model based on literature is quite low.
Direct Effects Test of Trust Literature
51
Personal Ldrshp
Relational Ldrshp
Contextual Ldrshp
TRUST
ns ns .78*
.35** .62***
Model Fit: TLI = .91; CFI = .94
Test of Hypothesized Mediated Model
r = .87
52
Personal Ldrshp
Relational Ldrshp
Contextual Ldrshp
TRUST
ns ns .78*
.35** .62***
Model Fit: TLI = .91; CFI = .94
•Personal & Contextual Leadership significantly associated with Relational Leadership (H3A & H3B)•Direct effects predicted by trust literature mediated, as predicted (H4A & H4B) •Fit of model substantially improved & quite high.
Test of Hypothesized Mediated Modelr = .87
53
Results of Hypothesis TestsHigher levels of Relational Leadership are associated with
greater Trust in the leader (H1). SUPPORTED
Personal (H2A) and Contextual (H2B) Leadership will be significantly associated with Trust. SUPPORTED WHEN EXAMINED IN ISOLATION; REJECTED WHEN MODELLED MORE COMPLETELY
Personal (H3A) and Contextual (H3B) Leadership will be significantly associated with Relational Leadership. SUPPORTED
The effects of Personal (H4A) and Contextual (H4B) Leadership on Trust will be mediated by Relational leadership.
H4A. SUPPORTED
H4B. SUPPORTED
54
Implications of Hypothesis Tests
H1 and H2: All three foundational dimensions appear to be determinants of trust if examined independently.
Personal and Contextual Leadership were found to be significantly associated with Relational Leadership (H3A and H3B)
Relational Leadership is a key determinant of Trust.As a direct determinant of Trust (H1)
Personal and Contextual Leadership effects on Trust are mediated (H4A and H4B) by Relational Leadership.
55
Including Self Ratings
“The locus of leadership is not solely in a leader or solely in follower. Instead, it involves behaviors . . . produced by
leaders as these elements are interpreted by followers.” (Lord & Maher, 1993; p.11)
Although our theoretical focus was based on “follower” reactions to leadership behavior (focusing on effects, not just leader attributes), we wanted to examine whether self ratings of leaders matched the ratings of “followers” and whether leader self
perceptions predicted “follower” trust in the leader.
56
Personal Ldrshp (Self)
Relational Ldrshp (Self)
Contextual Ldrshp (Self)
TRUST
nsns
Model Fit: TLI = .30; CFI = .58
.12**
Examining Trust Predictions with Self Ratings
57
Personal Ldrshp (Self)
Relational Ldrshp (Self)
Contextual Ldrshp (Self)
TRUST
nsns
Model Fit: TLI = .30; CFI = .58
.12**
Examining Trust Predictions with Self Ratings
•Self ratings of leadership behavior are distinct from others’ rating, are less predictive of trust, & have terrible model fit.
•Could they have effects through others’ perceptions of leadership?
58
Personal Ldrshp (Self)
Relational Ldrshp (Self)
Contextual Ldrshp (Self)
Personal Ldrshp (Others)
Relational Ldrshp (Others)
Contextual Ldrshp (Others)
TRUSTModel Fit: TLI = .75 ; CFI = .81
.54***
ns
.67***
.18*.21**
ns ns.66**
nsns
ns
r = .78 r = .69
r = .88
Do Self Ratings Have an Indirect Effect on Trust?
59
Personal Ldrshp (Self)
Relational Ldrshp (Self)
Contextual Ldrshp (Self)
Personal Ldrshp (Others)
Relational Ldrshp (Others)
Contextual Ldrshp (Others)
TRUST
Model Fit: TLI = .75 ; CFI = .81
.54*** .67***
.18*.21**
.66**
•Results are consistent with an indirect effect, but . . .
Why the striking relational leadership gap?
Do Self Ratings Have an Indirect Effect on Trust?
60
Self and Other Perceptions of Relational Leadership Behavior
Familiar social psychology finding of a gap between self perception of how fair, concerned, understanding, etc we are compared with how others see us (e.g., Messick et al, “Why we are fairer than others” JESP, 1985 )
Why observe in this situation?Possible that relational leadership behaviors are harder to discern
Possible that we are not as relationally positive as we think
Possible that we are but are lousy at projecting our concern or our efforts
But could self perceived relational leadership behavior still have an indirect effect on trust via other self perceptions?
61
Vision
PassionExpertiseCreativity Authenticity
Respect Concern Coordination
Coherence
Personal Ldrshp (self)
Relational Ldrshp (self)
Contextual Ldrshp (self)
e1 e2 e3 e4 e5 e6 e7 e8 e9
TRUST
e21e20 e22
e23
e10
Vision
PassionExpertiseCreativity Authenticity
e11 e12 e13 e14 e15
Respect Concern
e16 e17
Coordination
Coherence
e18 e19
Personal Ldrshp (other)
Relational Ldrshp (other)
Contextual Ldrshp (other)
Full Model
62
Personal Ldrshp (Self)
Relational Ldrshp (Self)
Contextual Ldrshp (Self)
Personal Ldrshp (Others)
Relational Ldrshp (Others)
Contextual Ldrshp (Others)
TRUST
.56***
ns
.69***
.18*.22**
ns ns.65**
nsns
ns
Model Fit: TLI = .73; CFI = .80
.94*** .85***
63
Personal Ldrshp (Self)
Relational Ldrshp (Self)
Contextual Ldrshp (Self)
Personal Ldrshp (Others)
Relational Ldrshp (Others)
Contextual Ldrshp (Others)
TRUST
.56*** .69***
.18*.22**
.65**
Model Fit: TLI = .73; CFI = .80
.94*** .85***
64
Results of Hypothesis Tests
Higher levels of Relational Leadership are associated with greater Trust in the leader (H1). SUPPORTED
Personal (H2A) and Contextual (H2B) Leadership will be significantly associated with Trust. SUPPORTED WHEN EXAMINED IN ISOLATION; REJECTED WHEN MODELLED MORE COMPLETELY
Personal (H3A) and Contextual (H3B) Leadership will be significantly associated with Relational Leadership. SUPPORTED
The effects of Personal (H4A) and Contextual (H4B) Leadership on Trust will be mediated by Relational leadership.
H4A. SUPPORTED
H4B. SUPPORTED
65
Implications of Exploration of Self versus Others’ Perception of Leadership
Leader self perceptions do not directly affect trust – but seem to have an indirect effect (sometimes very indirect) via others’ perceptions of leader behaviors
Followers’ perceptions of personal and contextual leadership behaviors appear to affect trust through followers’ perceptions of relational leadership behavior
Perceived relational leadership is the key to influences on trust in leaders
The relationship between self perceptions of leadership behavior and follower perceptions is not uniform – gap seems to be in the relational leadership dimension.
66
Builds on existing theory
Consistent with trust, justice and leadership literatures
Provides more systematic theoretical framework for linking leadership to trust through specific influencing actionsCompetence and other personal attributes
Relational features of fair treatment, consideration, respect, benevolence
Structural features can enable but only through their relational effects
67
Additional Implications/Future Directions
Leadership behavior can be systematically broken down and its effects on trust tested.
Leadership behavior does appear to be a significant influence on trust.
Examine what does not affect trust, as well as what does Does contextual leadership behavior really not affect trust if
relational features are controlled?
Test more complex, embedded models of how trust arises and is influenced by leadersSpecific behaviors, not just broader dimensionsDifferent organizational and cultural conditionsDifferent leader attributes
Test other effects in the leadership model
68
Conclusion and Next StepsBook under development
Have tightened measures & tests, coupling with experimental studies
Will examine rest of model
Articles on specific tests and applicationsAMR piece in development on theoryUnder development on domain effects, crisis, organizational
founding, and co-leadership, etc
Case studies and instructional materialsPractitioner pieces & cases Improve measurement instruments
Longitudinal field & lab data collection on perceived behavior – plus “hard” performance and behavior measures
69
Duke Leadership Research Program:
Additional Studies In Progress
Sim Sitkin, Allan Lind, and ColleaguesFuqua School of Business
Duke University
Winter, 2006
70
Leadership Behaviors as Determinants of Specific and Distinct Follower Responses
Sim Sitkin & Allan Lind
71
Leadership domains and effects
ETHICALETHICAL
INSPIRATIONALINSPIRATIONAL SUPPORTIVESUPPORTIVE
PERSONALPERSONAL RELATIONALRELATIONAL CONTEXTUALCONTEXTUAL
CREDIBILITY TRUST COMMUNITY
INITIATIVEHIGHASPIRATION
STEWARDSHIP
73
Initial Model for Aspirations
Elements of Inspirational LeadershipHigh standards, enthusiasm, confidence
Initial ResultsSupported, but fit could be improved
Path coefficient = .781, p<.001*
RMSEA .107, CLI = .83
PERSONAL Aspirations
* 263 observations of 61 leaders, SEM results adjusted for non-independence of observations using Cluster option in MPlus Version 3.13
Inspirational
74
Additional Work on Aspirations
INSPIRATIONAL
PERSONAL RELATIONAL
Aspirations
Initial Results Individually, all 3 dimensions have positive and
significant path coefficients predicting Aspirations, but Only Inspirational remains positive and significant when
all three dimensions are included in the SEM model
75
Gender and Leadership: The Effect of Mental Models at Different
Hierarchical Levels
Ashleigh Rosette, Leigh Tost,
Morela Hernandez, & Sim Sitkin
76
Gender Differences in Leadership
Research Goals: Examine the ways that women top leaders may express gender biases toward their same-sex colleagues; Understand that potential rivalries may exist among elite women;Advance this area of inquiry beyond the search for general trends in gender-based biases that persist across actors
Hypotheses: At the lower and middle levels of organizational hierarchy, women demonstrate an ingroup bias by favoring their women peers in their evaluations. However, at the top levels of organizational hierarchy, women demonstrate a bias against their female peers because the tokenism situations that are present in the highest levels of most organizations lead women to focus on perceived threat when considering peer women senior executives.
77
Study 1: Sample and Procedure
Participants completed the 360-degree survey online as part of 2005-2006 executive leadership courses (N=61)
40 men; 21 women36 were identified as top leaders and 24 were identified as middle managers
Ratings supplied by 227 work peers (156 men; 71 women)
Consent obtained from nearly all students
Survey distributed & completed online; approx. 20 min.
Participants received feedback as part of a course
Raters assured anonymity; ratings aggregated to preserve confidentiality of individual raters
The study consisted of a 2 (leader gender: male, female) x 2 (organizational level: top leader, middle manager) x 2 (rater gender: male, female) between-subjects factorial design
78
Study 1: VariablesIV’s
Organizational level:The raters’ position or rank within the company was coded into a dichotomous variable: Top managers and Middle managers
DV’s
Leadership Effectiveness: Relationship-oriented and task-oriented behaviors, relational and personal leadership, respectively.
Relational leadership behaviors ( = .86). Concern, Respect, and Fairness
Personal leadership behaviors ( = .85). Vision, Competence, and Creativity.
79
Figure 1. Mean ratings of leader effectiveness (personal leadership and relational leadership) by organizational level, leader gender, and rater gender (Study 1).
Personal Leadership
3
3.5
4
4.5
Male rater-Male leader
Male rater-Femaleleader
Femalerater-Male
leader
Femalerater-
Femaleleader
Top leader
Middle manager
Relational Leadership
3
3.5
4
4.5
Male rater-Male leader
Male rater-Femaleleader
Femalerater-Male
leader
Femalerater-
Femaleleader
Top leader
Middle manager
Figure 1.
Mean ratings of leader effectiveness (personal leadership
and relational leadership) by organizational
level, leader gender, and rater gender.
80
Gender Differences in Leadership
Results, confirmed predictions: Compared with women middle managers, women top leaders evaluated their work peers more negatively. This difference in evaluations was not observed between men top leaders and men middle managers. Negative evaluations only occurred when competition amongst the women top leaders was perceived to be high (as in Study 1) or when it was explicitly manipulated as high (as in Study 2).
Implication: Managers and executives should be aware of how tokenism may negatively influence women leaders and how it may cause their perspectives to differ substantially from that of their male colleagues.