The leader-member exchange as a link between managerial trust and
employee empowerment
Group & Organization Management
Thousand Oaks
Mar 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authors: Carolina Gomez
Authors: Benson Rosen
Volume: 26
Issue: 1
Pagination: 53-69
ISSN: 10596011
Subject Terms: Studies
Employee empowerment
Organization theory
Models
Professional relationships
Managers
Classification Codes: 9190: United States
9130: Experimental/theoretical
2500: Organizational behavior
Geographic Names: United States
US
Abstract:
This article examines the relationship between managerial trust and employee
empowerment. Hypotheses derived from leader-member exchange (LMX) theory
suggest that the quality of leader-member relations mediates the linkage
between managerial trust and employee empowerment. Data from 128 manager-employee
dyads from 13 organizations support this model. Whereas previous research
has pointed to the influence of organizational and social structural variables
on empowerment, this research shows the importance of manager-employee relationships
on perceived empowerment. Implications for researchers and managers leading
empowerment initiatives are discussed.
Copyright Sage Publications, Inc. Mar 2001
Full Text: This article examines the relationship between managerial trust
and employee empowerment. Hypotheses derived from leader-member exchange
(LMX) theory suggest that the quality of leader-member relations mediates
the linkage between managerial trust and employee empowerment. Data from
128 manager-employee dyads from 13 organizations support this model. Whereas
previous research has pointed to the influence of organizational and social
structural variables on empowerment, this research shows the importance of
manager-employee relationships on perceived empowerment. Implications for
researchers and managers leading empowerment initiatives are discussed.
Many organizational change initiatives have centered around the concept of
empowerment. Employee empowerment has emerged as a construct deemed critical
to organizational innovativeness (Spreitzer, 1995) and effectiveness (Conger
& Kanungo, 1988; Kanter, 1989). Whereas some empowerment initiatives
are geared specifically toward changing the role of middle managers (Spreitzer
& Quinn, 1996), the long-term intent is that empowerment trickles down
to each employee in the organization. Accordingly, it is critical to understand
what factors facilitate and inhibit employee empowerment.
Although the construct of empowerment has been defined in many different
ways (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Kanter, 1983; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990),
until recently it had not been adequately operationalized (Spreitzer, 1995,
1996). Spreitzer (1995) validated a multidimensional measure of psychological
empowerment that provides a new framework for research on the antecedents
of empowerment. Initial research has revealed a positive relationship between
certain individual and organizational factors and employee empowerment (Spreitzer,
1995, 1996). A logical question arises regarding the relationship between
managerial practices and employee empowerment (Keller & Dansereau, 1995).
Theories such as the leader-member exchange (LMX) provide a logical connection
between constructs such as managerial actions and employee empowerment. According
to LMX theory, those employees who are considered part of a manager's in-group
have a high-quality exchange (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975). This implies
that when managers trust their employees, they give these employees preferential
treatment such as increased information and latitude and discretion. The
LMX theory builds in the constructs of managerial trust and subsequent employee
empowerment. Although these constructs may somewhat overlap in both theory
and practice, the validation of measures of these constructs provides researchers
the tools to empirically tease out important relationships.
The purpose of this article is to examine the influence of the interpersonal
and immediate environment at work-the manager-employee relationship-- on
empowerment. Specifically, this study investigates the relationship between
managerial trust, a variable seen as critical to organizational coordination
and control (McAllister, 1995), the LMX, and employee empowerment. First,
the literature on empowerment and trust is reviewed. Second, the LMX is presented
as a variable proposed to mediate the trust-empowerment relationship. Hypotheses
are derived from the literature. Third, the research design used to test
the hypotheses and the results obtained are described. Finally, the implications
for managers leading the change toward empowered organizations are discussed
along with directions for future research.
LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES EMPLOYEE EMPOWERMENT
Employee empowerment has been reported as a management technique used by
companies to increase organizational effectiveness (Conger & Kanungo,
1988; Kanter, 1989; Spreitzer, 1995, 1996). As a construct, empowerment has
been defined in many ways. For example, Hollander and Offermann (1990) referred
to empowerment as the sharing of power. Other researchers have looked at
empowerment from the individual's perspective and defined it as the process
of increasing individual perceptions of control (Greenberger & Strasser,
1991; Kanter, 1983; Keller & Dansereau, 1995) as well as a process of
strengthening an individual's self-efficacy belief (Conger & Kanungo,
1988). Much of this research focused on the behavioral component of empowerment,
including behaviors such as increased latitude in decision making, control
over work, and increased access to information and resources.
A more recent stream of research has looked at empowerment from a cognitive
perspective, that is, from the perspective of the cognitions of the job incumbent.
Subsequently, researchers defined empowerment as consisting of four dimensions
or individual cognitions (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990) that have been empirically
validated (Spreitzer, 1995). From a cognitive perspective, empowerment consists
of an individual's judgment of meaning (i.e., the value of his or her work),
competence (i.e., his or her capability to perform the work), self-determination
(i.e., choice in initiating and regulating actions), and impact (the ability
to effect or influence organizational outcomes). Together, these four dimensions
portray a proactive individual mind-set (Spreitzer, 1996). Although researchers
continue to use the different meanings of empowerment, both behavioral and
cognitive, the validation of these four cognitive dimensions allows researchers
to accurately examine manager and ! employee behaviors that lead employees
to feel empowered.
Spreitzer (1995) found a number of antecedents of empowerment. Some of these
antecedents are individual factors, such as an individual's self-esteem,
whereas others are external to the individual, such as access to information
about the organization's mission (Spreitzer, 1995). Variables at the work
unit level-such as strong sociopolitical support from subordinates, work
group, peers, and superior; access to information; a work climate focused
on participation; and a work unit with little role ambiguity-also emerged
as antecedents to empowerment (Spreitzer, 1996).
As Spreitzer (1995) suggested, the identification of other antecedents to
empowerment could have important theoretical and managerial implications.
Just as individual and organizational factors have been related to employee
empowerment, research should look at interpersonal factors related to leadership
such as managerial trust and the subsequent quality of the leader-subordinate
relationship. Research has already started to look at the links between leadership
practices and employee empowerment (Keller & Dansereau, 1995). For example,
Keller and Dansereau (1995) looked at the dyadic LMX as a potential antecedent
to empowerment. They found that when leaders or managers provide support
for an employee's self-worth and expand negotiating latitude, employees experience
empowerment in terms of decision-making control (Keller & Dansereau,
1995). Within the LMX literature, managerial trust has been deemed a critical
component leading to a high-quality relationship and e! mpowering leader
behaviors.
MANAGERIAL TRUST
For many years, trust has been discussed as a variable that is crucial for
organizational effectiveness. Interpersonal trust is at the heart of organizational
coordination and control (McAllister, 1995). Researchers have identified
trust as a critical prerequisite before managers empower employees (Mayer,
Davis, & Schoorman, 1995; Mishra & Spreitzer, 1994). Previous models
of trust describe a dynamic process whereby trust develops between two people
through a mutually reinforcing process (land, 1972). In such a model, feelings
of trust are communicated through the disclosure of accurate and relevant
information, the acceptance of another's influence, and recognition of interdependence
(Zand, 1972).
Research on interpersonal trust has specifically defined it as an expectancy
held by an individual or group that the word or promise of another individual
or group can be relied on (Rotter, 1971, 1980). Further operationalization
of the construct of trust has defined it as a person's willingness to be
vulnerable to another party whose behavior is not under his or her control
(Hosmer, 1995; Zand, 1972) based on the belief that the other person is competent,
open, concerned, and reliable (Mishra & Spreitzer, 1994). Recent research
has also distinguished between cognition-based and affect-based trust (McAllister,
1995). Whereas cognition-based trust relates to beliefs about an individual's
reliability, dependability, and competence, affect-based trust is related
more to the emotional bond created by the mutual caring and concern that
exists between individuals (McAllister, 1995). Between the cognition-based
and affect-based trust, the different dimensions of trust emerge! , including
competence, openness, concern, and reliability.
Because managers play a critical role in the process of employee empowerment,
the successful transfer of power and authority to lower organizational levels
may depend in large part on managers' belief that subordinates can be trusted
(Burke, 1986; Manz & Sims, 1993). According to McAllister (1995), in
high-trust relationships, managers engage in little control-based monitoring
behaviors. Although McAllister's (1995) research focused on peer relationships,
Gibb (1965) argued that trust is an important element in predicting the methods
management will use with subordinates. Moreover, the LMX theory incorporates
the construct of trust into the manager-subordinate relationship (Butler,
1991; Dansereau et al., 1975) and the subsequent treatment given by managers.
Hence, the LMX theory can be used to derive hypotheses on the relationship
between managerial trust and employee empowerment.
TRUST AND EMPOWERMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE LMX
The LMX theory developed by Graen and his colleagues proposes that leaders
develop qualitatively different types of relationships with various employees
(Dansereau et al., 1975). Some employees will feel that they belong to an
in-group, whereas others will perceive that they are members of an out-group.
In-group employees have a high-quality exchange with their managers, whereas
out-group employees have a low-quality relationship. In-group employees receive
preferential treatment such as higher amounts of information, influence,
involvement, latitude, confidence, and concern from the manager (Dansereau
et al., 1975; Liden & Graen, 1980).
Trust is believed to play an important role in the quality of relationships
that managers have with their employees (Butler, 1991; Liden & Graen,
1980). LMX research predicts that in-group members are chosen by managers
based on their assessments of (a) employees' skills, (b) motivation to assume
greater responsibility, and (c) the extent to which they think the employee
can be trusted (Liden & Graen, 1980). Longitudinal research has confirmed
that managerial performance evaluations and levels of delegation are strongly
associated with the quality of an exchange (Bauer & Green, 1996). Although
managerial trust is assumed to be an integral component of this model, research
is needed that specifically measures a manager's trust in an employee and
the employee's perception of the quality of the exchange (Bauer & Green,
1996).
The assessments made by managers that are proposed to influence the quality
of the exchange parallel the dimensions of trust: competence, openness, concern,
and reliability (Mishra & Spreitzer, 1994). For example, as noted earlier,
measures of trust include an assessment of the degree to which a person believes
that the other person is competent. Such an assessment is similar to a performance
appraisal. Previously, LMX researchers have studied the relationship between
performance and the quality of exchange between managers and subordinates
(Liden & Graen, 1980). In addition, research has indicated that cognition-based
trust (i.e., reliability and competence) usually develops prior to affect-based
trust (i.e., the emotional bond) (McAllister, 1995). Therefore, in a developed
leader-member relationship, managerial trust should be associated with an
employee's perception of the quality of the exchange. Because in-group relationships
are characterized by high trust, ! employees who are trusted by their managers
should perceive themselves as engaged in high-quality relationships. Conversely,
out-group relationships are characterized by low trust (Dienesch & Liden,
1986). The relationship examined in this study is specifically between a
manager's assessment of employee trustworthiness and the employee's perception
of the quality of the exchange. The relationship analyzed is between the
manager's and employee's perceptions, although the employee's perception
of the exchange may include an element of whether the employee feels trusted
by the manager. Hence, we predict the following:
Hypothesis 1: Managerial trust will be positively related to employee perceptions
of the quality of the LMX such that the higher the level of managerial trust,
the more likely an employee will assess having a high-quality exchange.
As already noted, the LMX provides a natural link between managerial trust
and the leader behaviors that follow such trust. LMX research shows that
members with a high-quality LMX receive a variety of preferential treatments,
such as having greater employee responsibility and autonomy in decision making
(Kozlowski & Doherty, 1989). Interestingly, Bauer and Green's (1996)
research showed that managers use delegation to determine the quality of
the exchange. Managers delegate to employees early in the development of
the relationship as a way of assessing the trustworthiness, competence, and
ability of the employee. Bauer and Green (1996) proposed that delegation
is also used as a means of reward later in the development of the leader-member
relationship.
Keller and Dansereau (1995) found that when employees received negotiating
latitude and support for self-worth from their superiors, their perceptions
of control increased. The LMX theory provides a promising link between these
variables. In fact, leader-member research has shown that subordinates reporting
a high-quality relationship not only assume greater job responsibilities
but also express contributing more to their units (Liden & Graen, 1980).
A feeling of contribution is considered one dimension of empowerment: impact.
Similarly, greater job responsibilities should translate to an increased
perception of self-determination. Hence, the quality of the LMX influences
levels of delegation, responsibility, and autonomy, and in turn, employees
perceive greater latitude, decision influence, and feelings of contribution.
Therefore, we hypothesize a positive relationship between high-quality leader-member
relationships and employee empowerment. In addition, because we ! propose
that managerial trust influences the employee's perception of the quality
of the LMX, we hypothesize that the employee's perception of the quality
of the LMX will mediate the relationship between a manager's trust in an
employee and employee feelings of empowerment. Thus:
Hypothesis 2: The quality of the LMX will be positively related to employee
empowerment.
Hypothesis 3: The quality of the LMX will mediate the relationship between
managerial trust and employee empowerment.
METHOD
A cross-sectional research design was used to examine the relationships between
managerial trust, employee perception of the quality of the LMX, and employee
feelings of empowerment. Data were collected through questionnaires administered
at various work sites. Because the study examined the relationship between
managers and their employees, the level of analysis was the dyad represented
by a manager and his or her subordinate. To ensure variance in perceived
empowerment, employees with jobs representing a full range of responsibility,
discretion, and other components of empowerment were targeted. The design
partly avoids common method variance bias (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986) because
measurements of trust were obtained from managers and measurements of the
quality of the LMX and empowerment were obtained from employees.
Sixteen organizations associated with a university program were contacted
by phone and provided with a description of the research project. These organizations
were considered appropriate because they represented a diverse group of industries
and were at different levels of employee empowerment initiatives. The level
of employee empowerment initiative was determined during initial conversations
with company representatives. The representatives were asked whether employee
empowerment was a company initiative and, if so, for how long had it been
an initiative. Company representatives were asked to describe what the company
had done in trying to implement employee empowerment. The companies in our
sample represented a very broad range of stages in the process of implementing
empowerment programs. For example, some representatives noted that their
companies were thinking about such an initiative but had not yet started
anything official, whereas other representatives noted th! at their companies
had officially implemented an employee empowerment initiative several years
ago. Representatives also described a variety of company activities as part
of the initiative-from "baptism by fire" to lengthy training of managers.
Thirteen organizations expressed interest in the study and were sent written
proposals requesting access to samples of manager-direct report dyads. Most
organizations agreed to provide a minimum of 12 to 25 dyads for the study.
A package with two surveys was distributed directly to participating managers.
Instructions requested managers to complete one survey and deliver the second
survey to one of their employees. Half the managers were asked to think about
an employee with whom they had a high-quality relationship, whereas the other
half were asked to think about an employee with whom they had a low-quality
relationship. A total of 284 packages with two surveys in each package (i.e.,
568 surveys) were mailed out. Stamped, self-addressed envelopes were included
to ensure confidentiality of responses. Only surveys for which we had both
the manager's and the employee's response were included in the analyses.
A total of 130 dyad responses were received (46% response rate). Two surveys
were unusable, leaving 128 dyads.
MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENTS
Trust. Trust rests on the belief that a person is competent, open, concerned,
and reliable (Butler, 1991; Hosmer, 1995; Mishra, 1993; Mishra & Spreitzer,
1994). Trust was measured using a 14-item Likert-type scale. Eight items
were taken from Butler's (1991) Conditions of Trust scale to measure competence,
openness, and consistency. Six items were taken from Mishra's (1993) trust
scale to measure caring and competence. Competence can be considered in terms
of technical, general business, and interpersonal skills (Gabarro, 1987).
Whereas Butler's (1991) competence refers to technical skills to perform
a job, Mishra's (1993) competence refers to general business knowledge. Between
both Butler's (1991) and Mishra's (1993) scales, all four components of trust
were measured. Managers responded on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Empowerment. Psychological empowerment was assessed using Spreitzer's (1996)
12-item Individual Empowerment Measure. Spreitzer's questionnaire assesses
four dimensions of empowerment-competence, impact, meaning, and self-determination.
Each scale consists of three items. Direct reports responded on 5-point Likert-type
scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
LMX. The quality of the LMX was measured using the LMX questionnaire that
has been labeled as the Information Exchange Measure (Kozlowski & Doherty,
1989). The Information Exchange Measure consists of eight items measured
on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (to a very great extent).
Employees completed the Information Exchange Measure. Based on this measure,
high scores indicate in-group membership.
RESULTS
The managers and employees who participated in this study came from organizations
from diverse industries ranging from manufacturing to service companies.
Specifically, the manufacturing industries included industrial manufacturers
such as producers of aircraft engines, plastics, packaging materials, and
power systems to consumer products such as appliances and cars. The service
industries also included services provided to companies such as information
services as well as services for consumers such as utilities and financial
products. The participating managers confirmed the differing levels of employee
empowerment initiatives represented by the companies and originally reported
by company representatives. Specifically, 26% of the managers noted that
employee empowerment had been a major initiative for 1 year or less, 30%
reported that employee empowerment had been a major initiative for 1 to 2
years, and 44% said it had been a major initiative for more than 2 years.
Demographics of the managers showed that 83% of the managers participating
in the study were male and 17% were female. The average manager had 10 years
of experience. Most managers (67%) had been working with the specific employee
participating in the study from 1 to 5 years. Employee demographics showed
that 65% of the employees participating in this survey were male and 35%
were female. The typical employee participating in this study had 1 to 5
years in his or her position and more than 10 years with the company.
Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and correlations
of the variables of interest. The measures of trust and the quality of the
LMX and employee empowerment were measured reliably with scale alphas of
.93, .90, and .89, respectively (see Table 1).
To test the hypotheses, we used hierarchical moderated regression analysis
in which we initially entered factors such as the length of the relationship
between the manager and the employee and the years of experience in the position
of the employee as controls. These factors were chosen because it could be
argued that trust is built through interactions that occur over time. Hence,
over time, episodes of successful delegation might occur that lead a manager
to trust an employee (Bauer & Green, 1996). Therefore, it could be argued
that the longer two people have worked together, the greater the opportunity
for such episodes and events to occur and thus the greater the opportunity
to develop a trusting relationship. Similarly, we could argue that high-quality
relationships between managers and employees would be more probable with
the employees that have been in the position the longest. Our first hypothesis
predicted a positive association between managerial trust towa! rd an employee
and the employee's assessment of the quality of the LMX (i.e., being part
of the in-group). As shown in Table 2, managerial trust was significantly
related to employee perceptions of the quality of the LMX (beta= .46, p <.001).
Therefore, the hypothesized association between managerial trust and the
quality of the dyadic exchange was supported.
[IMAGE TABLE] Captioned as: TABLE 1
Hypothesis 2 predicted that the quality of the LMX would be positively associated
with employee empowerment. The results of the regression, shown in Table
3 (Regression 1), indicate that the quality of the exchange was significantly
related to employee empowerment (beta = .39, p < .001). Interestingly,
the employees' experience in the position was also related to empowerment
(beta = . 18, p < .05).
The third hypothesis predicts that the quality of the LMX mediates the relationship
between managerial trust and employee experiences of psychological empowerment.
To provide support for such a mediating effect, (a) variation in the predictor
variable should significantly account for variation in the mediating variable,
(b) variation in the mediating variable should significantly account for
variation in the dependent variable, and (c) when the mediator is controlled
for, the relationship between the predictor and the dependent variables should
no longer be significant (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Hence, managerial trust
must be related to the quality of the LMX as well as to employee empowerment.
In turn, the quality of the LMX must be related to employee empowerment,
but when the quality of the LMX is controlled for, the relationship between
managerial trust and the employee psychological experiences of empowerment
should no longer be significant.
The test of Hypothesis 1 shows that managerial trust is related to employee
perceptions of the quality of the LMX. The test of Hypothesis 2 shows that
the LMX is related to employee empowerment. Table 3 (Regression 2) shows
that managerial trust is also related to employee empowerment (beta=17, p
<.05). Table 3 (Regression 3) shows that when the employee perception
of the quality of the LMX is controlled for in a simultaneous regression
analysis, the direct effect between managerial trust and employee empowerment
is not significant (beta = -.01, ns), whereas the effect of the quality of
the LMX remains significant ([beta =.39, p < .001). Therefore, a mediating
effect is found for the quality of the LMX. Once again, the employee's experience
in the position was significantly related with empowerment (beta=.18, p <
.05).
[IMAGE TABLE] Captioned as: TABLE 2
DISCUSSION
Both academics and practitioners believe that managerial trust is a necessary
prerequisite for employee empowerment (Byham, 1990; Mishra & Spreitzer,
1994). In addition, research in the vertical dyad linkage model has indicated
that managers have different relationships with employees who are trusted
compared with employees who are not trusted (Dansereau et al., 1975). This
study links these two areas of research and uses the quality of the LMX as
a framework to explain the relationship between managerial trust and employee
empowerment.
Our first major finding was that employees who were more strongly trusted
by their managers expressed experiencing a better quality exchange with their
managers. A manager's trust in an employee was positively and significantly
associated with the employee's perceptions of being part of the in-group.
This finding provides strong support for the hypothesized relationship between
trust and quality of the exchange posited by the LMX theory (Liden &
Graen, 1980).
[IMAGE TABLE] Captioned as: TABLE 3
In addition, we also found that perceptions of a high-quality relationship
were significantly associated with an employee's experience of psychological
empowerment (Spreitzer, 1995). Those employees who assessed having a high-quality
relationship with their manager experienced higher levels of meaning, competence,
self-determination, and impact. In other words, in-group employees felt higher
levels of empowerment. Bauer and Green (1996) proposed that after delegation
is used to assess the employee's abilities and trustworthiness, managers
may continue to use delegation as a form of reward. Because the majority
of dyads in this study had been working together for at least a year, it
appears that employees do perceive the preferential treatment, such as manager
delegation, as a reward rather than a test.
Perhaps the most important contribution of the findings of this research
is that the relationship between managerial trust and psychological experiences
of empowerment is mediated by the quality of the LMX. This study empirically
tested and validated the relationship between these constructs that has been
hypothesized in both theory and practice. Managerial trust influences employee
perceptions of empowerment through the manager-employee relationship. Organizations
can redesign jobs and ensure that many social structural variables support
empowerment initiatives (Spreitzer, 1996). Nonetheless, this study points
to the importance of the immediate interpersonal relationships between managers
and employees. As noted by LMX theory, managers delegate more responsibility
and possibly provide more support and rewards to in-group members, which
is experienced as empowerment. Our findings, consistent with LMX theory,
confirm the growing significance of the interpersonal factor at ! work.
The finding that employees who perceive themselves to be in-group members
feel more empowered is somewhat of a mixed blessing for executives charged
with implementing empowerment initiatives. It is reassuring to note that
in-group employees experience high levels of empowerment. However, it is
also a matter of some concern that out-group members may experience far less
empowerment. Evidence suggests that demographic characteristics are predictive
of in-group/out-group status (Duchon, Green, & Taber, 1986). As the workforce
becomes increasingly more diverse, this tendency could become a major obstacle
to employee empowerment in organizations. To the extent that women and minorities,
for example, experience out-group status, they may also experience lower
levels of empowerment.
Similarly, Bauer and Green (1996) found that initial personality similarities
appear to be related to performance evaluations or judgments made by managers.
Managers need to be made aware of the potential drawbacks of initially assigning
employees to an out-group status based on non-job-related factors. There
is a real possibility that a self-fulfilling prophecy can be created that
deprives out-group employees of opportunities to experience empowerment early
in the manager-employee relationship.
Fortunately, Bauer and Green (1996) also found that over time, employee performance
and previous successful delegation by managers displaced personality similarity
in predicting LMX. From an employee's perspective, identifying and engaging
in actions that engender managerial trust may be one important strategy for
expanding personal control. In the past, organizational training efforts
have focused on preparing managers for operating in high-empowerment environments
(Spreitzer & Quinn, 1996). We suggest that such training include information
on the importance of fair treatment to all employees. In addition, our findings
imply that parallel training for employees on the building and maintenance
of trusting manager-employee relationships might also facilitate the transition
to empowered organizations. Research on determinants of trust such as availability,
consistency, competence, loyalty, and so on (Butler, 1991) could provide
a template for such training. Because rese! arch has already determined that
cognition-based trust components such as competence and reliability occur
before affect-based trust (McAllister, 1995), employees should focus on visibly
demonstrating their ability to do their jobs well. Moreover, because research
has also shown that managers use delegation as a way to assess an employee's
competence (Bauer & Green, 1996), employees can be coached to seek out
special assignments. Further research on actions by employees to strengthen
the leader-member relationship is clearly warranted.
The quality of the LMX accounts for significant but certainly not all of
the variance in the experience of psychological empowerment. Many other variables
also contribute to the level of experienced empowerment. In this study alone,
the employee's experience on the job was also related to feelings of empowerment.
Spreitzer (1996) found that structural variables such as lack of sociopolitical
support or poor access to information may detract from the experience of
empowerment. A variety of organizational constraints may keep even the most
highly trusted employees from fully experiencing psychological empowerment.
Therefore, from an organizational change perspective, organizations need
to take a systemic approach that looks at organizational and interpersonal
factors when implementing empowerment initiatives. The organization must
support the empowered employees by providing them with the needed resources
and information along with the adequate responsibility and power.
In addition, this study supports the belief that the successful implementation
of empowerment efforts depends on managers' willingness to relinquish control
and share power. Managerial mistrust of employees will likely impede employee
empowerment. On the other hand, when trusting relationships are established
(as reflected in a high-quality exchange), a manager's time can be allocated
to more strategic initiatives rather than close monitoring of employees (McAllister,
1995). Therefore, building a climate of trust and high-quality relationships
between managers and their employees may prove to be an important prerequisite
to the roll-out of empowerment programs.
A methodological limitation of the present study is the use of a crosssectional
research design that prohibits the definitive establishment of cause-and-effect
relationships. However, the regression analyses showing the mediating LMX
effect provide some important insights about the underlying relationship
among the variables of interest. In addition, Bauer and Green's (1996) longitudinal
study provided insight into the expected trends and dynamics of the leader-member
development. According to that research, after an initial assessment, managers
delegate to the employees they consider good performers, and the quality
of the exchange is subsequently related to both employee performance and
delegation. Bauer and Green noted the need for studies, such as this one,
that actually measure trust rather than just the behavioral implications
such as delegation. This study also used recently developed and validated
measures of trust and empowerment that had high reliabilities. One ! final
limitation is the dependence on self-report data for the assessment of two
of the three variables of interest. Nonetheless, on both these variables,
it was the employees' perceptions we were after.
The purpose of this study was to test the relationship between managerial
trust and empowerment. We hypothesized and found that a manager's assessment
of employee trustworthiness influences the quality of the LMX and that the
quality of the LMX mediates the relationship between trust and an employee's
experience of empowerment. Our study extends the research on the antecedents
of empowerment. Our findings have interesting implications for both managers
and employees. Both parties need to contribute to the development of a trusting
relationship. Higher levels of managerial trust will enhance employee perceptions
of empowerment.
REFERENCES
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator distinction
in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical
considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1996). Development of leader-member exchange:
A longitudinal test. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1538-1567.
Burke, W. (1986). Leadership as empowering others. In S. Srivastra &
Associates (Eds.), Executive power (pp. 51-77). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Butler, J. K. (1991). Toward understanding and measuring conditions of trust:
Evolution of a conditions of trust inventory. Journal of Management, 17,
643-663.
Byham, W. (1990). Zapp! The lightning of empowerment. New York: Harmony Books.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating
theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13, 471-482.
Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage
approach to leadership within formal organizations. Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, 13,46-78. Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986).
Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development.
Academy of Management Review, 11, 618-634.
Duchon, D., Green, S. G., & Taber, T. D. (1986). Vertical dyad linkage:
A longitudinal assessment of antecedents, measures, and consequences. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 71, 56-60.
Gabarro, J. J. (1987). The dynamics of taking charge. Boston: Harvard Business
School Press.
Gibb, J. R. (1965). Fear and facade. In R. Farson (Ed.), Science and human
affairs (pp. 197-214). Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books, Inc.
Greenberger, D. B., & Strasser, S. (1991). The role of situational and
dispositional factors in the enhancement of personal control in organizations.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 13, 111-145.
Hollander, E., & Offermann, L. (1990). Power and leadership in organizations:
Relationships in transition. American Psychologist, 45, 179-189.
Hosmer, L. T. (1995). Trust: The connecting link between organizational theory
and philosophical ethics. Academy of Management Review, 20, 379-403.
Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Kanter, R. M. (1989). The new managerial work. Harvard Business Review, 66,
85-92. Keller, T., & Dansereau, F. (1995). Leadership and empowerment:
A social exchange perspective. Human Relations, 48, 127-145.
Kozlowski, S. W., & Doherty, M. L. (1989). Integration of climate and
leadership: Examination of a neglected issue. Journal of Applied Psychology,
74, 546-553.
Liden, R. C., & Graen, G. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical dyad
linkage model of leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 451-465.
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (1993). Business without bosses. New York:
John Wiley.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative
model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709-734.
McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations
for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal,
38, 24-59.
Mishra, A. K. (1993, August). Breaking down organizational boundaries during
crisis: The role of mutual trust. Paper presented at the Academy of Management
Conference, Atlanta. Mishra, A. K., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1994, August).
Building trust and empowerment during
industry upheaval. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Conference,
Dallas. Podsakoff, P., & Organ, D. (1986). Self-reports in organizational
research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531-544.
Rotter, J. B. (1971). Generalized expectancies for interpersonal trust. American
Psychologist, 26, 443-452.
Rotter, J. B. (1980). Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness, and gullibility.
American Psychologist, 35, 1-7.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions,
measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442-1465.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological
empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 39,483-504.
Spreitzer, G. M., & Quinn, R. E. (1996). Empowering middle managers to
be transformational leaders. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32, 237-261.
Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment:
An interpretive model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management
Review, 15, 666-681. Zand, D. E. (1972). Trust and managerial problem solving.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 229-239.
CAROLINA GOMEZ
Towson University
BENSON ROSEN
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Carolina Gomez is an assistant professor of management at Towson University.
She received her Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Her research interests focus on organizational behavior theories such as
empowerment, justice, and goal setting, with particular interests in the
generalizability ofsuch theories to other cultures with different values
and institutions.
Dr. Benson Rosen is Hanes Professor of Management at the Kenan-Flagler Business
School at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He teaches organizational
behavior, management, and human resource management courses in the undergraduate,
MBA, and doctoral programs and in a variety of executive development programs.
He holds a Ph.D. in social and industrial psychology from Wayne State University.
He is a fellow of the American Psychological Association and member ofthe
Academy of Management and the Society for Human Resources Management. Dr.
Rosen serves on the editorial review board of the Academy of Management Executive
and the Human Resource Management Journal.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or
distribution is prohibited without permission.
