Page 1
Examining the Cognitive and Affective Trust-Based MechanismsUnderlying the Relationship Between Ethical Leadershipand Organisational Citizenship: A Case of the Head Leadingthe Heart?
Alexander Newman • Kohyar Kiazad •
Qing Miao • Brian Cooper
Received: 19 February 2013 / Accepted: 30 June 2013
� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013
Abstract In this paper, we investigate the trust-based
mechanisms underlying the relationship between ethical
leadership and followers’ organisational citizenship
behaviours (OCBs). Based on three-wave survey data
obtained from 184 employees and their supervisors, we
find that ethical leadership leads to higher levels of both
affective and cognitive trust. In addition, we find support
for a three-path mediational model, where cognitive trust
and affective trust, in turn, mediate the relationship
between ethical leadership and follower OCBs. That is to
say, we found that ethical leadership leads to the devel-
opment of cognitive trust, which subsequently influences
the development of affective trust. Affective trust, in turn,
induces followers to exhibit OCBs as a means of recipro-
cating the leader’s favourable behaviour. Our findings
suggest that both affective and cognitive trust plays an
important role in the social exchange processes that
underlie the relationship between ethical leadership and the
discretionary behaviour of followers.
Keywords Ethical leadership � Organisational citizenship
behaviour � Social exchange � Trust
Introduction
Over the last decade growing empirical work has examined
the critical role played by ethical leadership in contributing
to the effective functioning of organisations and reducing
unethical behaviour amongst employees (Mayer et al.
2012; Miao et al. 2012; Walumbwa et al. 2012). Although
organisations are increasingly emphasising ethics training
as part of their leadership development programs (Jordan
et al., in press), recent calls from scholars (e.g. Mayer et al.
2012) have stressed the need for greater research into the
explanatory mechanisms linking ethical leadership to fol-
lower behaviours.
Ethical leadership refers to a style in which the leader
demonstrates normatively appropriate conduct and com-
municates the importance of such conduct to followers
(Brown et al. 2005). In developing their theory of ethical
leadership, Brown et al. (2005) highlight its potential for
promoting desired follower behaviours that contribute to
organisational effectiveness. Over the last 10 years a grow-
ing body of work has shown the positive impact of ethical
leadership on job performance (Piccolo et al. 2010; Wal-
umbwa et al. 2011), organisational citizenship behaviours
(OCBs) (Avey et al. 2011; Kacmer et al. 2011; Kalshoven
et al. 2011; Mayer et al. 2009; Ruiz-Palomino et al. 2011) and
innovative behaviours (Yidong and Xinxin 2012). However,
it is only in recent years that researchers have begun to tease
out the psychological mechanisms that underlie such rela-
tionships (Kalshoven et al. 2013; Piccolo et al. 2010; Yidong
and Xinxin 2012; Walumbwa et al. 2011).
In the present study, we contribute to the growing lit-
erature on ethical leadership by developing and testing a
mediation model that explicates the process by which
ethical leaders influence followers’ discretionary work
behaviours, namely OCBs directed towards the
A. Newman � K. Kiazad � B. Cooper
Department of Management, Monash University, 900
Dandenong Road, Caulfield East, VIC 3145, Australia
e-mail: [email protected]
K. Kiazad
e-mail: [email protected]
B. Cooper
e-mail: [email protected]
Q. Miao (&)
College of Public Administration, Zhejiang University,
YuanQuan Campus, Hangzhou 310027, China
e-mail: [email protected]
123
J Bus Ethics
DOI 10.1007/s10551-013-1803-2
Page 2
organisation (OCBO) and organisational members (OCBI).
Building on social exchange theory (Blau 1964), we
examine the role of trust-based mechanisms in transmitting
the effects of ethical leadership on follower OCBs.
Although researchers have advanced insights based on
social learning theory for understanding why ethical lead-
ership reduces followers’ undesirable or unethical behav-
iours, through role modelling, the social exchange
perspective provides a more robust explanation as to why
followers might reciprocate ethical treatment through the
display of desired behaviours such as OCBs (Kalshoven
et al. 2013). We focus specifically on follower OCBs
directed at the organisation (OCBO) and individuals within
the organisation (OCBI) for two reasons. First, followers
are more likely to reciprocate ethical leader behaviours in
ways the leader values, including helping co-workers and
the organisation as a whole (e.g. Kalshoven et al. 2013).
Second, because ethical leaders emphasize the collective
(i.e. workgroups and the wider organisation), followers
might see interpersonal and organisationally directed
OCBs as appropriate reciprocation that indirectly benefits
the leader (Flynn 2005; Kalshoven et al. 2013).
In the present study, we argue that followers will
reciprocate ethical leadership through OCBs, and that this
relationship will be explained by follower trust in leader.
Although recent reviews of the literature have highlighted
trust in leader as a social exchange mechanism linking
ethical leadership to desired follower behaviours (Brown
and Trevino 2006; Eisenbeiss 2012), it has not been a topic
of prior empirical investigation. Building on recent work
that conceptualizes trust as consisting of affective and
cognitive dimensions (Dirks and Ferrin 2002; McAllister
1995; Wang et al. 2010; Yang and Mossholder 2010; Yang
et al. 2009; Zhu et al. 2013), the present study provides a
fine grained understanding of the trust-based mechanisms
underlying the relationship between ethical leadership and
follower OCBs. Affective trust captures the strong emo-
tional ties that develop between the leader and follower as
they engage in a process of reciprocated social exchange
(McAllister 1995; Yang and Mossholder 2010), whilst
cognitive trust results from the follower’s assessment of the
leader’s salient personal characteristics such as their com-
petence, reliability and integrity (Ng and Chua 2006;
Schaubroeck et al. 2011). Although past research has found
that affective and cognitive trust may influence desired
follower behaviours in different ways (Zhu et al. 2013),
recent work suggests that cognitive trust may serve as a
prerequisite to the development of affective trust (Schau-
broeck et al. 2011; Schaubroeck et al., in press). In the
present study, we argue that although ethical leadership
will lead to higher levels of affective and cognitive trust,
only affective trust will have a direct impact on follower
OCBs. However, we also argue that cognitive trust plays an
important role in terms of providing a foundation for the
development of higher quality social exchange relation-
ships between follower and leader, from which affective
trust develops. Taken together, we propose a three-path
mediational model, in which ethical leadership will influ-
ence follower OCBs through two sequential mediators,
affective trust and cognitive trust. Specifically, we predict a
chain of relationships as follows: ethical leadership, cog-
nitive trust, affective trust, follower OCBs. By examining
the processes by which both dimensions of trust transmit
the effects of ethical leadership on follower OCBs, our
works extends the trust and leadership literature in
important new directions.
In the following sections, we review the literature before
presenting our hypotheses. We then go on to explain how
the data were collected and analysed, and present our
findings. Finally, we discuss our findings and their impli-
cations, before presenting an agenda for future research.
Ethical Leadership
Ethical leadership has been defined as ‘‘the demonstration
of normatively appropriate conduct through personal
actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion
of such conduct to followers through two-way communi-
cation, reinforcement and decision-making’’ (Brown et al.
2005, p. 120). This definition takes a holistic approach,
measuring both the personal traits and the behaviours of the
leader, reflecting the moral person dimension of ethical
leadership, and the proactive behaviours of the leader that
encourage follower ethical behaviour, reflecting the moral
manager aspect (Brown and Trevino 2006). There is
growing evidence to suggest that ethical leadership is both
conceptually and empirically distinguishable from similar
constructs such as the idealised influence dimension of
transformational leadership, leader–member exchange and
interactional justice (Brown et al. 2005; Toor and Ofori
2009; Kalshoven et al. 2011; Mayer et al. 2012). Brown
et al. (2005) argue that ethical leadership is made up of four
defining features. First, ethical leaders build up credit as
ethical role models by conducting behaviours that are
normatively appropriate in the eyes of followers, for
example by exercising self-discipline and responsibility
(Walumbwa et al. 2012). Second, they communicate to
followers what is ethical and encourage feedback from
followers. Third, they set clear ethical standards and ensure
followers abide by those standards through the imple-
mentation of appropriate rewards and punishment (Weaver
et al. 2005). Finally, they take into account ethical princi-
ples when making decisions and ensure that this process is
observable by followers. In other words it is through their
actions that ethical leaders seek to influence the behaviour
A. Newman et al.
123
Page 3
of their followers. Based on this conceptualisation, Brown
et al. (2005) developed the ethical leadership scale (ELS)
to provide an empirical basis from which to investigate the
impact of ethical leadership on follower outcomes in the
workplace.
Although social learning theory (Bandura 1977) has
been forwarded to explain the mitigating effects of ethical
leadership on follower deviant or unethical behaviours,
social exchange theory has typically been used to explain
why ethical leadership has a positive influence on desired
follower behaviours such as job performance and OCBs
(Walumbwa et al. 2011; Walumbwa et al. 2012). Social
exchange theory (Blau 1964) seeks to elucidate the process
by which individuals obtain resources through interacting
with others. It focuses on the ongoing reciprocated
exchange of care and concern between two parties within a
relationship, and the outcomes obtained by both parties as a
result of them being in the relationship. From a social
exchange perspective, when followers perceive that their
leaders treat them fairly and act with integrity, they may
feel a sense of obligation to reciprocate the leader’s
favourable behaviour by engaging in OCBs that target
other individuals or the organisation (Eisenbeiss 2012). In
other words, followers will regard the display of OCBs as
an appropriate way to reciprocate ethical treatment they
receive from their leader.
In the present study, we examine follower trust in the
leader as a mechanism through which ethical leadership
translates its positive effects on follower OCBs directed
towards the organisation and co-workers. Whilst trust has
previously been identified as a critical social exchange
mediator (Cropanzano and Mitchell 2005), past studies
using the social exchange framework for understanding the
impact of ethical leadership have not included an explicit
measure of this key-mediating mechanism. Thus, our
research tests the value of social exchange theory as a
framework for understanding the impact of ethical leader-
ship by incorporating trust as a mediating mechanism.
Ethical Leadership and Trust in Leader
Trust has been defined as ‘‘a psychological state compris-
ing the intention to accept vulnerability based upon posi-
tive expectations of the intentions or behaviour of another’’
(Rousseau et al. 1998). Based on this definition, the extent
to which followers are prepared to subject themselves to
the actions of the leader and work in the interests of the
leader depends on the social exchange relationship between
the leader and follower. Indeed, trust has been shown to
play a vital role in the formation and maintenance of social
exchange relationships because it encourages obligation
and reduces uncertainty around reciprocation (Blau 1964;
Colquitt et al. 2012; Cropanzano and Mitchell 2005). For
example, Konovsky and Pugh (1994) note that trust is a key
component in the development and deepening of social
exchange relationships. In order to better understand how
trust serves as a mechanism through which ethical leader-
ship translates its effects on the followers’ OCBs, we adopt
McAllister’s (1995) two-dimensional model of trust, which
distinguishes between affect- and cognition-based trust.
We chose McAllister’s (1995) model over other existing
multi-dimensional models of trust (e.g. Lewicki and Bun-
ker 1995, 1996; Mayer et al. 1995) for two reasons. First,
McAllister’s (1995) model has been the subject of much
empirical work in recent years and has been validated in a
variety of contexts (Dirks and Ferrin 2002; Ng and Chua
2006; Wang et al. 2010; Yang et al. 2009; Yang and
Mossholder 2010). In contrast, no published measures of
Lewicki and Bunker’s trust types currently exist (Colquitt
et al. 2012). Second, relative to these other existing models
of trust, McAllister’s (1995) model is more commonly used
in studies of leadership, including those that link favour-
able leadership styles to enhanced follower job perfor-
mance and OCBs (e.g. Schaubroeck et al. 2011, Zhu et al.
2013).
McAllister’s (1995) model distinguishes between two
dimensions of trust: cognitive and affective trust. Cognitive
trust has been labelled ‘trust from the head’ (Chua et al.
2008), and refers to that which is rooted in one person’s
rational and objective assessment of the key personal
characteristics possessed by another, namely, their com-
petence, reliability and integrity (Dirks and Ferrin 2002;
Yang et al. 2009). It is therefore character-based and hinges
primarily upon the trustor’s evaluation of the trustee’s track
record and performance-relevant attributes (Colquitt et al.
2012). Affective trust, or ‘trust from the heart’ (Chua et al.
2008), has a more relational orientation, developing on the
basis of ongoing socio-emotional exchanges (e.g. care,
concern and consideration) and an understanding of
reciprocated sentiments (Colquitt et al. 2007; Colquitt et al.
2012; Dirks and Ferrin 2002; McAllister 1995; Zhu et al.
2013).
We propose that the display of ethical leadership will
relate positively to both cognitive and affective trust in the
leader. As ethical leadership has been linked to follower
perceptions as to the degree to which leaders make fair and
consistent decisions and respect followers’ rights in the
workplace (Brown and Trevino 2006), followers who
experience ethical leadership are likely to view their leader
as dependable, reliable and of integrity (Eisenbeiss 2012).
As a consequence, this should lead followers under an
ethical leader to develop higher levels of cognitive trust in
the leader. From a social exchange perspective, beliefs
about the leader’s competence and dependability are likely
to signal to the follower that the leader is a suitable partner
Examining the Cognitive and Affective Trust-Based Mechanisms
123
Page 4
with whom to engage in a process of reciprocal social
exchange, which is characteristic of cognitive trust (Mc-
Allister 1995; Schaubroeck et al., in press). Indeed, cog-
nitive trust captures one’s confidence in another’s attributes
in the context of an exchange relationship (McAllister
1995). Existing evidence supports a positive link between
ethical leadership and follower’s cognitive trust in the
leader. For example, Den Hartog (2003) found a positive
relationship between perceived leader integrity and trust in
leader. Related research by Zhu et al. (2013) also suggests
that exemplary leader behaviour (e.g. sacrificing individual
benefits for the well-being of the group, maintaining con-
sistency between words and actions) can enhance follower
perceptions of leader integrity and reliability, in turn con-
tributing to the development of cognitive trust.
In addition, ethical leadership is likely to direct the
follower to view the leader as being genuinely concerned
about their well-being, thereby strengthening the relational
bond between leader and follower, and engender higher
levels of affective trust. For example, Yang et al. (2009)
show that subordinate’ perceptions of fair and respectful
treatment from a supervisor can induce higher levels of
affective trust. Likewise, Zhu et al. (2013) argue that leader
behaviours that reflect concern for the welfare and needs of
followers will strengthen the emotional bond between
leader and follower, which will elicit higher levels of
affective trust. Ethical leaders also provide employees with
consistent expectations and follow through with norma-
tively appropriate behaviour, thereby reinforcing a positive
exchange relationship with the follower, and in turn fos-
tering the development of affective trust. This leads to the
following hypothesis:
H1 Ethical leadership is positively related to cognitive
trust
H2 Ethical leadership is positively related to affective
trust
Although ethical leadership is expected to lead to higher
levels of both affective and cognitive trust in leader, trust
scholars argue that cognitive trust might also serve as a
foundation from which affective trust develops (Lewicki
and Bunker 1995, 1996; McAllister 1995). Before deciding
whether one is ready to invest their resources in developing
more personalised bonds with an exchange partner, an
individual will typically seek to determine the credibility of
the other party, i.e. their cognitive trust (McAllister 1995).
A higher level of cognitive trust in leader will serve to
reduce uncertainty on the part of the follower about whe-
ther one can rely on that leader (Colquitt et al. 2012). This
in turn will provide encouragement for the follower to
develop closer emotional ties with the leader. In other
words, as highlighted by Schaubroeck et al. (in press),
cognitive trust represents diagnostic information that
allows the follower to determine that their leader may be
suitable for a high quality exchange relationship. Thus,
only when a baseline level of cognitive trust is met, will the
follower be ready to form the emotional attachments with
the leader that affective trust represents. Recent empirical
studies at both the team and the individual level provide
evidence that followers’ cognitive trust in leader positively
relates to their affective trust in leader (Schaubroeck et al.
2011; Schaubroeck et al., in press). This leads to the fol-
lowing hypothesis:
H3 Cognitive trust is positively related to affective trust
Trust and Organisational Citizenship Behaviour
Recent empirical work suggests that affective trust has
stronger effects on follower OCBs than cognitive trust (Zhu
et al. 2013). For example, Zhu et al. (2013) found that
affective trust led followers to display greater OCBs, whilst
cognitive trust did not. This may be because affective trust
is more relational in nature (Schaubroeck et al. 2011; Yang
et al. 2009), and better captures the social exchange
mechanisms that occur when leaders engage in reciprocal
exchange with their followers (Yang and Mossholder
2010). In other words, we would expect a high quality
exchange relationship, characterised by follower affective
trust in leader, to lead followers to reciprocate the leader’s
favourable actions by engaging in OCBs that benefit the
organisation and co-workers. This leads to the following:
H4 Affective trust is positively related to follower OCBs
Mediating Effects of Trust in the Relationship Between
Ethical Leadership and Follower Organisational
Citizenship Behaviour
So far we have argued that the display of ethical leadership
generally leads followers to believe that their leader is
dependable, reliable and of integrity, as measured by
cognitive trust (Eisenbeiss 2012; Zhu et al. 2013). Such
beliefs are likely to represent the motivational intent to
develop close emotional ties with the leader, which in turn
will elicit higher levels of affective trust (Schaubroeck
et al. 2011; Schaubroeck et al., in press). Thus, consistent
with prior research, we view cognitive trust as an ante-
cedent to the development of affective trust (Schaubroeck
et al. 2011; Schaubroeck et al., in press). The close affi-
liative bond characterised by high levels of affective trust
in the leader, in turn, will direct followers to reciprocate
ethical leader behaviours with OCBs that benefit the
organisation and co-workers. This is because affective trust
A. Newman et al.
123
Page 5
better captures the social exchange processes that guide
reciprocal behaviour, relative to cognitive trust (Yang and
Mossholder 2010). Taken together, we expect cognitive
trust to mediate the relationship between ethical leadership
and follower’s affective trust in the leader, and affective
trust, in turn, to mediate the relationship between cognitive
trust and follower OCBs. This leads to the following
hypothesis:
H5 Cognitive trust mediates the relationship between
ethical leadership and affective trust, which, in turn,
mediates the relationship between cognitive trust and fol-
lower OCBs.
Method
Sample and Procedure
A total of 184 supervisor–subordinate dyads from three
firms participated in our study. The firms were located in
Zhejiang Province, which is in the South-East of China,
and were randomly selected from a list of top employers in
the province. Table 1 provides information on each of the
firms.
Survey data were collected during the second half of
2011. We collected data from two sources (supervisors and
their subordinates) and across three time periods to mini-
mize common method bias (Podsakoff et al. 2012). Prior to
distribution, the questionnaires were translated into Chi-
nese from English by bilingual members of the research
team using the back-translation procedure (Brislin 1993).
Questionnaires were distributed to 350 subordinates
working under 60 supervisors (an average of about 6 sub-
ordinates per supervisor), 20 from each organisation, in two
waves separated by 1 month. In the first wave subordinates
provided their demographic data and rated the ethical
leadership of their immediate supervisors. Subordinates
then ranked their cognitive and affective trust in their
supervisors in the second wave. A total of 306 subordinates
responded to both waves of the subordinate survey, rep-
resenting a subordinate response rate of 87 %. In the third
wave, a month later, we distributed questionnaires to the 60
direct supervisors asking them to rate their subordinates’
OCBs. Out of these supervisors, a total of 42 responded,
amounting to a supervisor response rate of 70 %. In all,
184 matched subordinate-supervisor responses were
received across all three waves, representing a response
rate of 53 %. Prospective respondents were assured that
their responses were confidential, and were informed of the
voluntary nature of participation. Both sets of question-
naires were coded to ensure that the responses of the
subordinates and their supervisors could be matched.
Of the 184 subordinates, 55 % were male, mean age was
24.54 years (SD = 5.00), and they had worked on average
under their present supervisor for just under 2 years
(M = 22.06 months, SD = 21.17). On average, about four
subordinates working under each supervisor were repre-
sented in the final sample.
Measures
Ethical leadership was measured using the 10-item Ethical
Leadership Scale (ELS) developed and validated by Brown
et al. (2005). Sample items include, ‘‘The supervi-
sor…disciplines employees who violate ethical standards’’
and ‘‘…sets an example of how to do things the right way
in terms of ethics’’. Subordinates rated each item on a
5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree)
with higher scores indicating greater ethical leadership
behaviour. The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .87.
Affective and Cognitive Trust
Affective and cognitive trust was self-reported by subor-
dinates using McAllister’s (1995) affect and cognition-
based trust scales on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree,
5 = strongly agree). Five items were used to measure
affective trust and six items to measure cognitive trust.
Sample items of affective trust included ‘We have a shar-
ing relationship’, and ‘We can both freely share our ideas,
feelings and hopes’. Sample items of cognitive trust were:
‘This person approaches his/her job with professionalism
and dedication’, and ‘I can rely on this person not to make
Table 1 Information on
participating organisationsOrganisation Industry Employee
numbers
Copies
distributed
Dyadic
responses
Included in final
sample
A Furniture design and
manufacturing
2,045 140 71 69
B Electronics design and
manufacturing
105 100 63 52
C E-commerce and logistics 120 110 64 63
Total 350 198 184
Examining the Cognitive and Affective Trust-Based Mechanisms
123
Page 6
my job more difficult by careless work’. The Cronbach’s
alphas for affective trust and cognitive trust were .88 and
.91, respectively.
Organisational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB)
OCBI and OCBO were measured by a 16-item scale (8-
items for each dimension) developed and validated by Lee
and Allen (2002). Sample items for OCBI include, ‘‘Helps
others who have been absent’’ and ‘‘Goes out of way to
make new employees feel welcome in the work group’’.
Sample items for OCBO include ‘‘Attend functions that are
not required but that help the organisational image’’ and
‘‘Offer ideas to improve the functioning of the organisa-
tion’’. Supervisors rated the OCBs of their subordinates on
a 5-point scale (1 = ‘strongly disagree’; 5 = ‘strongly
agree’). The Cronbach’s alphas for both OCBI and OCBO
were .91.
Control Variables
To control for potential confounding effects, we examined
age, gender and education level of subordinates, and length
of time working under the present supervisor as control
variables (Piccolo et al. 2010; Zhu et al. 2013). Age was
measured in years and time working under supervisor in
months. A dummy variable was used to measure gender
(0 = female, 1 = male) and education (0 = not university
educated, 1 = university educated).
Method of Analysis
Latent variable structural equation modelling (SEM) with
maximum likelihood estimation using LISREL 8.80 was
used to estimate the parameters of our hypothesised
model. We chose SEM as it is the most powerful tech-
nique for testing models involving both direct and indi-
rect effects and is effective in removing the biasing
effects of measurement error (Kline 2011). Results of
evaluation of SEM assumptions of normality and linearity
were satisfactory. However, there may be non-indepen-
dence in ratings amongst subordinates reporting to the
same supervisor which violates the assumption of inde-
pendence in SEM. By incorporating information on
which supervisor a subordinate belongs to, LISREL is
able to generate correct parameter estimates and standard
errors that take into account the clustering or nesting of
subordinates under the same supervisor (Stapleton 2006).
Finally, we tested the sensitivity of our analyses to the
control variables outlined above. None of the controls
were statistically significant predictors and the results
showed little substantive change with their inclusion.
Hence, we report results below with no controls.
Results
Table 2 reports means, standard deviations and correlations
amongst the study variables.
Construct Validity
In the present study, ethical leadership was conceptualised
at the individual level, under the assumption that followers
under the same leader may differ in their perceptions of his/
her leadership styles (Zhu et al. 2013). To test the need for
data aggregation, we followed Preacher et al.’s (2010)
recommendations for latent variable modelling and exam-
ined inter-rater reliability and inter-rater agreement at the
indicator (item) level. Aside from one item, random effects
ANOVAs showed no statistically significant differences
between supervisors on the ELS items. Although ICC1
values were small to moderate (averaging .05), ICC2 val-
ues (which measure the reliability of the group means)
averaged only .20 indicating little support for aggregation
against a conventional .70 cutoff (Bliese 2000). Moreover,
rwg(j) values calculated using uniform null and mildly
skewed null distributions were under .70 (averaging .67
and .50, respectively), suggesting an absence of strong
within-group agreement (LeBreton & Senter 2008). Taken
together, these results provide support for modelling ethical
leadership at the individual level, rather than at the
supervisor level.
Next, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the
hypothesised 5-factor model (i.e. with items loading onto
the corresponding factors of ethical leadership, affective
trust, cognitive trust, OCBI and OCBO) yielded a good fit
to the data v2(df = 619) = 1,070, RMSEA = .06, TLI =
.96, CFI = .96. A CFA combining both OCBI and OCBO
resulted in a poorer fit v2 (df = 623) = 1,259, RMSEA =
.09, TLI = .95, CFI = .95. Hence, we retained the model
with OCBI and OCBO rather than that with an overall
OCB. A CFA combining both affective trust and cognitive
trust also resulted in a poorer fit v2(df = 623) = 1,263,
RMSEA = .08, TLI = .95, CFI = .95, supporting the
Table 2 Means, standard deviations and correlations of study
variables
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4
1. OCBI 3.83 0.64
2. OCBO 3.94 0.66 .68**
3. Ethical leadership 3.48 0.69 .14 .09
4. Affective trust 3.24 0.78 .36** .32** .63**
5. Cognitive trust 3.64 0.70 .28** .20** .66** .61**
* p \ .05, ** p \ .01
A. Newman et al.
123
Page 7
distinction between the two dimensions of trust. Finally, a
one-factor measurement model (where all indicators loaded
on to a single factor), a variant of Harman’s single-factor
test, resulted in a very poor fit, v2(df = 629) = 2,775,
RMSEA = .23, TLI = .82, CFI = .83. Taken together,
these results provide evidence for construct validity of the
measures used in this study.
Structural Model
Our hypothesised model, as shown in Fig. 1, had a rela-
tively good fit to the data, v2(df = 624) = 1,170,
RMSEA = .07, TLI = .95, CFI = .96. Despite reduction
in the Chi square with the addition of new parameters, a
model with direct effects of ethical leadership and cogni-
tive trust on follower OCBs did not consistently improve fit
on other fit indices over the hypothesised model:
v2(df = 620) = 1,136, RMSEA = .07, TLI = .96,
CFI = .96. Following James et al. (2006), we accepted the
hypothesised model as the better one as it contains fewer
parameters and hence is a more parsimonious representa-
tion of the observed data.
Figure 1 presents the standardised path coefficients for
our hypothesised model. As can be seen, there was a strong
positive relationship between ethical leadership and cog-
nitive trust (b = .75, p \ .01). Hence, hypothesis 1 was
supported. There was also a positive relationship between
ethical leadership and affective trust (b = .44, p \ .01).
Hence, hypothesis 2 was supported. It is interesting to note
the standardised path coefficient was stronger between
ethical leadership and cognitive trust than between ethical
leadership and affective trust. Note as we collected data on
ethical leadership and trust at two separate time points, this
strengthens our confidence that ethical leadership behav-
iours are an antecedent of perceived trust.
In support of hypothesis 3, there was a positive relation-
ship between cognitive trust and affective trust (b = .33,
p \ .01). Affective trust was also positively related to OCBI
(b = .43, p \ .01) and OCBO (b = .38, p \ .01). Thus,
hypothesis 4 was supported. Hypothesis 5 predicted that the
relationship between ethical leadership and follower OCBs
will be mediated by two variables, cognitive and affective
trust, acting in turn. In effect, hypothesis 5 is a three-path
mediational model, where two mediators (cognitive trust and
affective trust in this case) intervene in a series. The three-
path-mediated effect is operationalised as the indirect effect
passing through both mediators. We calculated the standard
error of the three-path indirect effect using the multivariate
delta method which is accurate for minimum sample sizes of
100–200 (Taylor et al. 2008). Results showed that the
standardised indirect effect for ethical leadership on OCBI
via cognitive trust, and in turn, affective trust was .11 (95 %
CI .01 to .21) and .09 for OCBO (95 % CI .01 to .18). Taken
together, these results support the three-path-mediated effect
implied in hypothesis 5. However, ethical leadership, as
expected, was also directly related to affective trust, that is,
independently of cognitive trust (see Fig. 1). Hence, the
three-path-mediated effect only partially accounts for the
effects of ethical leadership on follower OCBs. The total
indirect effect of ethical leadership via affective trust
(including that part independent of cognitive trust) on OCBI
was .29 (95 % CI .17 to .41) and .26 for OCBO (95 % CI .10
to .42). When the direct effects of cognitive trust were added
to the model, they were not significantly related to OCBI
(b = .02, p [ .05) or OCBO (b = -.09, p [ .05), indicat-
ing that the mediated effect worked entirely through affec-
tive trust in this sample. Overall, our hypothesised model
explained 18 % of the variance in OCBI and 14 % in OCBO,
an amount comparable to that of other studies using super-
visor ratings (Podsakoff et al. 2000).
Ethical Leadership
Cognitive Trust
Affective Trust
OCB-I
OCB-O
Fig. 1 Results of structural
equation model notes:
statistically significant
standardised path coefficients
reported. *p \ .05, **p \ .01
Examining the Cognitive and Affective Trust-Based Mechanisms
123
Page 8
Discussion
As the ethical dimension of leadership continues to attract
increasing scholarly and practitioner attention, we sought to
develop a more nuanced understanding of the impact of
ethical leadership on follower outcomes by examining the
trust-based mechanisms underlying the relationship between
ethical leadership and follower OCBs. Of particular impor-
tance is the support we found for a three-path mediational
model, where cognitive trust and affective trust, in turn,
mediate the relationship between ethical leadership and
follower OCBs. Thus, ethical leadership leads followers to
perceive their leaders as competent and of good character
(cognitive trust); cognitive trust, in turn, leads to the devel-
opment of an emotional bond with the leader (affective
trust); affective trust leads to follower OCBs as a means to
reciprocate the leader’s favourable behaviour.
Theoretical Implications
Our findings advance existing research on ethical leader-
ship in several important ways. First, by showing that
ethical leadership is positively related to follower OCBs
targeted at the organisation and individuals within the
organisation, the present study broadens the domain of
follower behaviours associated with ethical leadership. In
line with recent work by Kalshoven et al. (2013), we show
that ethical leadership leads to the development of higher
quality social exchange relationships between followers
and leaders, and elicits followers to reciprocate in the form
of discretionary work behaviours. These findings suggest
that followers respond to ethical leadership by acting in a
pro-team and pro-organisational manner through OCBs
directed at co-workers (OCBI) and the organisation more
generally (OCBO).
Second, our study is the first to identify the trust-based
mechanisms by which ethical leadership influences fol-
lower OCBs. Leadership scholars typically incorporate
trustworthiness in conceptualisations and operationalisa-
tions of ethical leadership (e.g. Brown and Trevino 2006;
Brown et al. 2005). For example, Brown et al.’s (2005)
ethical leadership scale, which we have used in the present
study, includes a generic measure of trust (‘can be trusted’)
to capture the follower–leader relationship component of
ethical leadership. However, this does not take into account
the different forms of trust that ethical leaders can elicit.
Thus, by disaggregating trust into its cognitive and affec-
tive components, the present study adds theoretical nuance
to our understanding of the trust-based mechanisms linking
ethical leadership with follower outcomes in the context of
a social exchange relationship. In doing so, we also provide
a more direct test of social exchange theory as a framework
for understanding the impact of ethical leadership than has
previously been reported. Consistent with previous work in
the area of transformational leadership (Zhu et al. 2013)
and organisational justice (Colquitt et al. 2012), we found
that it was affective rather than cognitive trust in the leader
that transmitted the effects of ethical leader behaviour on
follower OCBs. In this way, our finding aligns with exist-
ing views that affect-based trust has stronger exchange-
based mediation effects because of its more prominent
reciprocal nature (Colquitt et al. 2012).
Our study makes a further contribution by establishing
the role of cognitive trust as an important prerequisite to
the development of affective trust in explaining the ethical
leadership–follower OCB link. In other words, it is through
improving follower perceptions of their character that
ethical leaders are able to elicit the development of a strong
emotional attachment to their subordinates (affective trust),
and subsequent reciprocation in the form of OCBs. In this
regard, our findings are consistent with those of Schau-
broeck et al. (2011) and Schaubroeck et al. (in press), who
found cognitive trust to serve as an antecedent to the
development of affective trust.
Finally, our study also advances social exchange theory
by incorporating and testing the importance of both cog-
nitive and affective trust as mechanisms in the social
exchange process. Results from past studies employing the
social exchange framework have typically suggested that
social exchange-based mediation effects are primarily due
to the affect-based dimension of trust (e.g. Colquitt et al.
2012). However, our findings show that cognitive trust also
plays a vital role in social exchange dynamics by providing
a basis for followers to develop stronger social exchange
relationships with their leaders. In other words, our findings
stress the importance of taking into account the interplay
between cognitive and affective trust in order to understand
the complex process by which leaders engender recipro-
cation from their followers.
Implications for Practice
Our findings have important practical implications for
managers. First, by highlighting the trust-based mecha-
nisms underlying the relationship between ethical leader-
ship and follower’s extra-role behaviour, our findings
suggest that leaders should carefully consider the strategies
they use to influence their followers’ behaviour in the
workplace. More specifically, our findings indicate that
ethical leadership might be used as a tool by managers to
influence the extra-role behaviour of employees through
the development of trust.
In order to benefit fully from ethical leadership, organ-
isations should consider incorporating ethical elements into
A. Newman et al.
123
Page 9
their selection, development and appraisal processes. For
example, organisations might place greater emphasis on
training both leaders and their followers to develop their
sensitivity towards ethical issues. This should result in the
exhibition of more ethical behaviour by leaders, as well as
increase the receptiveness of followers to such behaviours.
At the leadership level, ethical training should be incor-
porated into leadership development programmes and
include topics such as communicating the importance of
ethics, rewarding employees who act in an ethical manner
and serving as an ethical role model (Mayer et al. 2009). In
addition, organisations might also seek to incorporate
ethical components into employee selection methods. For
example they could present potential employees with a
possible scenario in which they are faced with an ethical
dilemma and evaluate their responses to it. They could also
use psychometric tests that assess the candidate’s integrity
or moral development.
Moreover, the findings of the present study highlight the
importance of follower’s trust in leader to their extra-role
behaviour. Organisations should train supervisory-level
employees to exhibit behaviours that are conducive towards
the development of trust such as the provision of individu-
alised support and advice, alongside the exhibition of ethical
leadership behaviours. This should serve to reinforce the
effects of ethical leadership on follower behaviour.
Limitations and Conclusions
As with all research this study has some limitations. First,
although we measured the independent, mediating and
dependent variables at different points in time, the two
mediating variables, affective and cognitive trust were
measured at the same time. To fully ascertain whether
affective trust mediates the relationship between cognitive
trust and follower OCBs, future research might seek to
measure cognitive trust at an earlier time period than
affective trust or use a cross-lagged panel design. This will
enable researchers to determine the exact nature of the
relationship between cognitive and affective trust. Never-
theless, it is important to note that the results of our model
are consistent with theoretical predictions based on extant
research (Schaubroeck et al., in press). Second, given the
present study was conducted in a cultural context charac-
terised by high levels of collectivism and respect for
hierarchy, additional work might be conducted to establish
whether the trust-based processes by which ethical lead-
ership translates it effects are similar in cultural contexts
which are more individualistic and less hierarchical.
Despite its limitations the present study has notable
strengths. For example, we collected data from two sepa-
rate sources which reduces the potential problems resulting
from common method bias (Podsakoff et al. 2012), and we
collected the independent, mediating and dependent vari-
ables at different time periods.
In conclusion, the present study was the first to examine
the trust-based mechanisms underlying the relationship
between ethical leadership and follower work outcomes. It
makes an important contribution by providing a more
nuanced understanding of how ethical leadership enhances
follower’s OCBs through the development of cognitive and
affective trust. Confirming the findings of previous studies
which demonstrate that affective trust has stronger medi-
ating effects on follower extra-role behaviour than cogni-
tive trust (Zhu et al. 2013), only affective trust was found to
mediate the impact of ethical leadership onto follower’s
OCBs. However, we also revealed that affective trust
mediated the impact of cognitive trust, indicating that both
types of trust explain how ethical leaders influence their
followers’ citizenship behaviour. We hope the present
findings will encourage researchers to investigate in greater
depth the trust-based mechanisms by which ethical leaders
influence follower behaviour, and the conditions under
which such mechanisms will be most effective.
References
Avey, J. B., Palanski, M. E., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2011). When
leadership goes unnoticed: The moderating role of follower self-
esteem on the relationship between ethical leadership and
follower behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 98, 573–582.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York:
Wiley.
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence and
reliability. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel
theory, research and methods in organizations: Foundations,
extensions and new directions (pp. 349–381). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brislin, R. (1993). Understanding culture’s influence on behavior.
Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Brown, M. E., & Trevino, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review
and future directions. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 595–616.
Brown, M. E., Trevino, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical
leadership: A social learning perspective for construct develop-
ment and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 97, 117–134.
Burke, C. S., Sims, D. E., Lassara, E. H., & Salas, E. (2007). Trust in
leadership: A multi-level review and integration. Leadership
Quarterly, 18, 606–632.
Chua, R. Y. J., Ingram, P., & Morris, M. W. (2008). From the head
and the heart: Locating cognition- and affect-based trust in
managers’ professional networks. Academy of Management
Journal, 51, 436–452.
Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Zapata, C. P. (2012).
Explaining the justice-performance relationship: Trust as
exchange deepener or trust as uncertainty reducer? Journal of
Applied Psychology, 97, 1–15.
Examining the Cognitive and Affective Trust-Based Mechanisms
123
Page 10
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust,
trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of
their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 909–927.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. (2005). Social exchange theory: An
interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31, 874–900.
Den Hartog, D. N. (2003). Trusting others in organizations: Leaders,
management and co-workers. In B. Nooteboom & F. E. Six
(Eds.), The trust process, empirical studies of the determinants
and the process of trust development. Cheltenham: Edward
Elgar.
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-
analytic findings and implications for research and practice.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 909–927.
Eisenbeiss, S. A. (2012). Re-thinking ethical leadership: An interdisci-
plinary integrative approach. Leadership Quarterly, 23, 791–808.
Flynn, F. J. (2005). Identity orientations and forms of social exchange
in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 30, 737–750.
James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., & Brett, J. M. (2006). A tale of two
methods. Organizational Research Methods, 9, 233–244.
Jordan, J., Brown, M. E., Trevino, L. K., & Finkelstein, S. (in press).
Someone to look up to: executive-follower ethical reasoning and
perceptions of ethical leadership. Journal of Management.
Kacmer, K. M., Bachrach, D. G., Harris, K. J., & Zivnuska, S. (2011).
Fostering good citizenship through ethical leadership: Exploring
the moderating role of gender and organizational politics.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 633–642.
Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. B. (2011).
Ethical leadership at work questionnaire (ELW): Development
and validation of a multidimensional measure. Leadership
Quarterly, 22, 51–69.
Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D. N., & de Hoogh, A. H. B. (2013).
Ethical leadership and followers’ helping and initiative: The role
of demonstrated responsibility and job autonomy. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22, 165–181.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation
modelling (3rd ed.). New York: Guildford.
Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and
social exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 656–669.
LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions
about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organiza-
tional Research Methods, 11, 815–852.
Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior
and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 131–142.
Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1995). Trust in relationships: A
model of development and decline. In B. B. Banker & J.
Z. Rubin (Eds.), Conflict, cooperation, and justice (pp.
133–173). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lewicki, R., & Bunker, B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust
in work relationships. In R. Kramer & T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in
organizations (pp. 114–139). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mayer, D. M., Aquino, K., Greenbaum, R. L., & Kuenzi, M. (2012).
Who displays ethical leadership and why does it matter: An
examination of antecedents and consequences of ethical leader-
ship. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 151–171.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative
model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review,
20, 709–734.
Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador,
R. (2009). How low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a
trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 108, 1–13.
McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as
foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations.
Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24–59.
Miao, Q., Newman, A., Yu, J., & Xu, L. (2012). The relationship
between ethical leadership and unethical pro-organizational
behavior: Linear or curvilinear effects? Journal of Business
Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1504-2.
Ng, K. Y., & Chua, R. Y. J. (2006). Do I contribute more when I trust
more? Differential effects of cognition- and affect-based trust.
Management and Organization Review, 2, 43–66.
Piccolo, R. F., Greenbaum, R., Den Hartog, D. N., & Folger, R.
(2010). The relationship between ethical leadership and core job
characteristics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31,
259–278.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G.
(2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review
of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for
future research. Journal of Management, 26, 513–563.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012).
Sources of method bias in social science research and recom-
mendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology,
65, 539–569.
Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general
multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation.
Psychological Methods, 15, 209–233.
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not
so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of
Management Review, 23, 393–404.
Ruiz-Palomino, P., Ruiz-Amaya, C., & Knorr, H. (2011). Employee
organizational citizenship behavior: The direct and indirect
impact of ethical leadership. Canadian Journal of Administrative
Sciences, 28, 244–258.
Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S. K., & Peng, A. C. (2011). Cognition-
based and affect-based trust as mediators of leader behavior
influences on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
96, 863–871.
Schaubroeck, J., Peng, A. C., & Hannah, S. T. (in press). Developing
trust with peers and leaders: Impacts on organizational identi-
fication and performance during entry. Academy of Management
Journal.
Stapleton, L. M. (2006). An assessment of practical solutions for
structural equation modeling with complex sample data. Struc-
tural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 13,
28–58.
Taylor, A. B., MacKinnon, D., & Tein, J. Y. (2008). Test of the three-
path mediated effect. Organizational Research Methods, 11,
241–269.
Toor, S., & Ofori, G. (2009). Ethical leadership: Examining the
relationships with full range leadership model employee out-
comes, and organizational culture. Journal of Business Ethics,
90, 533–547.
Walumbwa, F. O., Mayer, D. M., Wang, P., Wang, H., Workman, K.,
& Christensen, A. L. (2011). Linking ethical leadership to
employee performance: The rules of leader–member exchange,
self-efficacy, and organizational identification. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115, 204–213.
Walumbwa, F. O., Morrisson, E. W., & Christensen, A. L. (2012).
Ethical leadership and group in-role performance: The mediating
roles of group conscientiousness and group voice. Leadership
Quarterly, 23, 953–964.
Wang, S., Tomlinson, E. C., & Noe, R. (2010). The role of mentor
trust and protege internal locus of control in formal mentoring
relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 358–367.
Weaver, G. R., Trevino, L. K., & Agle, B. (2005). ‘‘Somebody to look
up to:’’ Ethical role models in organizations. Organizational
Dynamics, 34, 313–330.
Yang, J., & Mossholder, K. W. (2010). Examining the effects of trust
in leaders: A bases-and-foci approach. Leadership Quarterly, 21,
50–63.
A. Newman et al.
123
Page 11
Yang, J., Mossholder, K. W., & Peng, T. K. (2009). Supervi-
sory procedural justice effects: The mediating roles of
cognitive and affective trust. Leadership Quarterly, 20,
143–154.
Yidong, T., & Xinxin, L. (2012). How ethical leadership influence
employees’ innovative work behavior: A perspective of intrinsic
motivation. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-
012-1455-7.
Zhu, W., Newman, A., Miao, Q., & Hooke, G. (2013). Revisiting the
mediating role of trust on transformational leadership effects: Do
different types of trust make a difference? Leadership Quarterly,
24, 94–105.
Examining the Cognitive and Affective Trust-Based Mechanisms
123
