Human Resource Management Review 21 (2011) 201–208

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Human Resource Management Review

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r.com/ locate /humres

Trust and psychological empowerment in the Russian work context

Harry Barton a,⁎, Lisa C. Barton b,1

a Nottingham Business School, Nottingham Trent University, Park Row, Nottingham NG1, United Kingdomb Groupe Sup de Co La Rochelle, 102 rue de Coureilles, Les Minimes, 17024 La Rochelle, Cedex, France

a r t i c l e i n f o

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 115 848 8205; faE-mail addresses: Harry.barton@ntu.ac.uk (H. Bart

1 Tel.: +33 546517700; fax: +33 546517798.

1053-4822/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc.doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2011.02.001

a b s t r a c t

For Russian organizations to achieve global competitiveness it is suggested that they mustadopt the most appropriate forms of leadership and organization to encourage the necessarycompetencies to achieve these ambitions. In this conceptual paper we illustrate that Russianorganizational leaders can stimulate improved organizational effectiveness through theirencouragement of psychological empowerment amongst managers. In so doing, Russianmanagers experience intrinsic motivation to take greater responsibility for organizationalperformance. We propose that managers’ experience of psychological empowerment is relatedto their trust in organizational leaders since studies suggest that trust is a critical psychologicalstate that determines the success of the empowerment process. Whilst the concepts of trustand psychological empowerment have extensive literatures there is limited examination of therelationship between the two constructs in different cultural settings. Our contribution is toillustrate the importance of trust as an antecedent to psychological empowerment withinRussian organizations, an environment characterized by high power distance and collectivism.A number of management implications derive from our study.

© 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords:Cognitive and affect-based trustPsychological empowermentRussiaPower-distanceCollectivism

1. Introduction

A major goal following Vladimir Putin's` election to President of the Russian Federation in 2000 was to secure a place in theglobal economic community. A critical challenge for Russia's competitiveness remains in improving the microeconomic capabilityof the economy and the sophistication of local companies and local competition (Porter, 2003). For Russian organizations tocompete successfully they need to adopt the most appropriate forms of leadership and organization to develop competencies toachieve these ambitions (Kets De Vries, 2000), since approaches to organisation and leadership differ in different cultural settings(Christopher et al., 2000; Fey, Pavlovskaya, & Tang, 2004). High power-distance and collectivism in particular characterise theRussian enterprise environment (Hofstede, 1980; Ralston, Holt, Terpstra, & Kai-Cheng, 1997; Ronen & Shenkar, 1985; Triandis &Gelfand, 1998; Vadi & Vereshagin, 2006; Wagner & Moch, 1986).

The competitive global environment demands the utilization of employee capabilities and potential in the organizationthrough leaders` use of intrinsic and extrinsic motivational techniques (Chan, Taylor, & Markham, 2008). Psychologicalempowerment acts as an intrinsic motivator allowing employees to take personal ownership of their jobs, to exercise self-determination, satisfy their need for power and to reinforce their personal self-efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1989). Trust has beensuggested as a critical psychological state that determines the success of the empowerment process (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman,1995).

This conceptual paper examines how Russian managers` cognitive and affect-based trust in their leaders is an importantantecedent to their feelings of empowerment. Whilst a number of studies link the constructs of trust and psychologicalempowerment, (Bandura, 1989; Chan et al., 2008; Costigan et al., 2007; Ergeneli, Saglam, & ve Metin, 2007; Mayer et al., 1995)

x: +44 115 848 8150.on), Bartonl@esc-larochelle.fr (L.C. Barton).

All rights reserved.

202 H. Barton, L.C. Barton / Human Resource Management Review 21 (2011) 201–208

there has been limited examination of the relationship between the two constructs in different cultural settings. Additionally,whilst extant studies in the domain of trust focus on the relational notion of trust in exchange dyads, there is little investigation ofemployees` assessments of trust in their immediate manager (Ergeneli et al., 2007). Consequently, our contribution to theliterature is to illustrate the importance of trust as an antecedent to psychological empowerment within Russian organizationsthrough our exploration of Russian managers` assessments of leader trustworthiness.

The paper is structured as follows. The first section presents the theoretical background of our study and conceptual model. Wedetail the context of our study and present the constructs of our model establishing the importance of managers` psychologicalempowerment in improving organizational effectiveness during transition to a market economy. We follow with a discussion ofhow managers` cognitive and affect-based trust in leaders is essential for the development of their feelings of empowerment. Wehighlight propositions which illustrate how our concepts are linked and propose that the constructs’ are mutually reinforcing. Weconclude with some of the managerial implications that derive from our study and present the limitations.

2. Theoretical background

2.1. Russian cultural context

In times of organizational change it is necessary for employees to take initiative, risk, stimulate innovation and cope with highuncertainty (Spreitzer, 1995). This is certainly the case as Russian organizations progress their ambitions for globalcompetitiveness (Kets De Vries, 2000). However, the authoritarian style invoked by organizational leaders; common in Russianorganizations is purported to constrain individual initiative, empowerment, creativity and innovation (Fey and Denison, 2003; Feyet al., 2004; Linz, Good, & Huddleston, 2006). `Oneman leadership` was the basic principle of soviet enterprise through democraticcentralism (Vlachoutsicos, 1997). Manager conformance and not simply performance was fundamental under the old Sovietregime. Providing incentives in Russian organizations for risk taking behaviour or problem resolution was uncommon amongstlower level managers (May, Bormann-Young, & Ledgerwood, 1998). State control of organizations meant that these managersbecame resourceful in securing their own survival and futures in an environment of extreme scarcity and harsh punishment wherethe organization was regarded as a separate entity for which they had a commitment and loyalty to its performance (May et al.,1998; McCarthy & Puffer, 2002; McCarthy, Puffer, Vishanski, & Naumov, 2005). Consequently, Communist control producedmanagers who lacked accountability and responsibility for decisions and outcomes, since many situations were beyond theircontrol (May et al., 1998). The group took priority over the individual within a culture marked by extreme conservatism, riskavoidance and a strong tendency to maintain stability (Vlachoutsicos, 1997). This work environment prevails owing to theengrained Russian Collectivist Value System (RCVS) which has tended to be an enduring part of Russian life and an obstacletowards change (Vlachoutsicos, 1997). Yet, as Russian organizations attempt to reposition themselves as market drivenenterprises, managers are being given greater authority and responsibility for organizational performance as the businesscommunity has begun to understand that certain leadership styles and behaviours could be the source of competitive advantage(Alexashin & Blenkinsopp, 2005; Gratchev, Rogovsky, & Rakitski, 2007). However, it is suggested that managers are heldaccountable for performance without stimulation of motivation and initiative (Fey et al., 2004). Consequently, Russian managersfind themselves in an uncertain position where they are simultaneously affected by their cultural inheritance from the Soviet eraas well as being influenced by non-Russian models of management, involving innateWestern values. It is therefore necessary thatleadership approaches and management practices adopted in the Russian context energize managers by building faith in theirability to accomplish meaningful goals (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990) and that are at the same time sensitive to the culturalinheritance.

A high power-distance culture as displayed in Russia is associated with the extent to which the less powerful members of theorganization accept and expect that power is distributed unevenly (Elenkov, 1998). High power-distance is explained by a longhistory of Russian organizational leaders possessing a very high degree of power over the destinies of subordinates (Alexashin &Blenkinsopp, 2005). Consequently, high power-distance has an important influence on managers’ willingness to accept andexercise discretionary power granted by organizational leaders and as such has implications for the development of employees’feelings of empowerment (Humborstad, Humborstad, Whitfield, & Perry, 2008; Robert, Probst, Martocchio, Drasgow, & Lawler,2000).Whilst Russian employees expect an autocratic leadership style and accept the legitimate power of leaders, they also expecttheir organization to take care of them like a family does (Elenkov, 1998). Reliance upon personal networks of trusted friends andcolleagues is important (McCarthy & Puffer, 2002; Vadi & Vereshagin, 2006) since work behaviour is still very much influenced bythe RCVS (Fey & Denison, 1998; Vadi & Vereshagin, 2006; Vlachoutsicos, 1997).

Conforming to the RCVS, employees subordinate their personal goals to the goals of some collective, for example co-workers,(Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai, & Lucca, 1988). The behaviour of employees relates therefore, to goals that are consistent witha particular group and as such, reactions to leadership approaches will be based on group consensus (Ramamoorthy & Carroll,1998; Vlachoutsicos, 1997). Consequently, collectivism may act as an obstacle to change.

Faced with this work environment, any attempt by organizational leaders to introduce management initiatives designed toprogress Russian organizations along the path of transition must be sensitive to the culture which, on the one hand, ischaracterized by an autocratic ‘one leader’ style of management, and on the other hand, where collectivism tends to prefer themaintenance of stability. We argue that for Russian leaders to improve managerial and organizational effectiveness, psychologicalempowerment of managers` is beneficial. Thus, in the context of our study we are basing our exploration of the constructs of ourmodel from the perspective of managers as subordinates to organizational leaders. From this perspective we propose that

203H. Barton, L.C. Barton / Human Resource Management Review 21 (2011) 201–208

psychological empowerment fosters managers` intrinsic motivation to take greater responsibility for organizational performance,encourages the development of competencies and innovation where power and control is shared (Ergeneli et al., 2007).

Trust from the managers` assessment of a leader's trustworthiness. We assert that managers’ experience of psychologicalempowerment is related to their trust in organizational leaders since it is suggested that trust is a critical psychological state thatdetermines the success of the empowerment process (Mayer et al., 1995). Trust evolves from a pattern of careful, rational thinking(cognition-based) coupled with an evaluation of the trust partner's feelings, instincts and intuition (affect-based trust), (Morrow,Hansen, & Pearson, 2004). We suggest that both elements of trust are critical for the development of psychological empowermentamongst Russian managers. Further, we propose that the relationship between trust and psychological empowerment is one ofinterpersonal exchange which is mutually reinforcing. As such, managers` trust perceptions build psychological empowerment,where empowered managers reciprocate in the exchange by placing greater trust in organizational leaders as the relationshipdevelops over time. This relationship is beneficial as Russian organizations continue to face economic transition. Fig. 1 presents ourconceptual model. The following sections provide a discussion of the concepts of our model.

2.2. Psychological empowerment

Definitions of empowerment generally include the notion of decentralization of decision-making authority and responsibilityto lower level employees, allowing them discretion to act on their own to think strategically and to be personally responsible forthe quality of their tasks in order to improve the organizations functioning (Mills & Ungson, 2003; Pardo del Val & Lloyd, 2003). Assuch, empowerment is conceptualized as a set ofmanagerial practices focused on delegating decision-making authority (Spreitzer,De Janasz, & Quinn, 1999). However, whilst management can create a context for empowerment, employees must choose to beempowered (Quinn & Spreitzer, 1997). Empowerment is not something that management does to employees, but a mindset thatemployees have about their role in the organization; a form of intrinsic motivation termed `psychological empowerment` (Thomas& Velthouse, 1990). A positive relationship between psychological empowerment and organization performance has beensuggested (Humborstad et al., 2008). More specifically, a number of studies argue that employees who feel more empowered aremore motivated, competent and effective in their work; more innovative and less scared to try something new (Fey et al., 2004;Quinn & Spreitzer, 1997). Consequently, psychological empowerment in our conceptual model describes a motivational constructwhich leads to increased intrinsic task motivation manifested on behalf of employees in a set of cognitions relating to their workrole (Mills & Ungson, 2003; Spreitzer, 1995; Spreitzer, Kizilos, & Nason, 1997). These cognitions include meaning, (value of a workgoal judged in relation to an employee`s own standards and ideals) competence, (employees belief in their capability to performactivities with skill), self-determination (employees sense of having choice in initiating and regulating actions) and impact (thedegree to which an employee perceives he/she can influence strategic, administrative or operating outcomes at work) (Spreitzer,1995; Spreitzer et al., 1997; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). According to Spreitzer (1995), these four factors act additively todetermine the extent of psychological empowerment experienced by employees and, thus, enable them to exercise theirempowered role. Together, these cognitions reflect an active rather than passive orientation to the work role, whereby the worksituation is not seen as `given` but one that can be shaped by employee actions (Spreitzer et al., 1999). This, it is suggested, leavesemployees optimistic, involved, committed and able to cope with adversity where they feel a sense of responsibility and capability(Hardy & Leiba-O`Sullivan, 1998). Employees thus develop a feeling of empowerment which can enhance the value of their work,increase job satisfaction and contribute to work productivity and success (Koberg, Wayne Boss, & Goodman, 1999). Through

Cognition-basedtrust

Affect-based trust

MeaningP1a

P1b

P2a

P2b

P3

Impact

Competence

Self-determination

Managers` trust in leaders

Psychological empowerment

Fig. 1. The relationship between trust and psychological empowerment in the Russian work context.

204 H. Barton, L.C. Barton / Human Resource Management Review 21 (2011) 201–208

psychological empowerment organizational leaders encourage employees to feel that they have power over significant aspects oftheir work creating both a sense of ownership in their work and in the organization. By empowering employees, leaders exchangethe legitimate power, control and supervision that they have over their employees with management practices that emphasizesupport and co-operation (Chan et al., 2008). Thus, psychological empowerment is necessary for Russian managers in adopting amindset or preparedness for change as well as their willingness to develop the capabilities necessary for organizations to competesuccessfully in the global economy. Consequently, rather than organizational leaders simply creating the context forempowerment, managers` must be willing to be empowered. We argue that managers` cognitive and affect-based trust in theirorganizational leaders is an important antecedent to the development of the four dimensions of psychological empowerment inthe Russian context. The following sections illustrate our argument.

2.3. Trust

Trust is a key component of organizational relationships and directly influences their contribution to the organization in terms ofperformance (Mayer et al., 1995; Tzafir, 2006; Zhu, May, & Avolio, 2004). The concept of trust is rooted in its related roles as both arequirement for individuals to cope with uncertainty and as a means of social cohesion and control encouraging employeeinvolvement (Nuissl, 2005; Spreitzer&Mishra, 1999).Muchof the literature on trustwithin organizations focuses onhierarchical trustrelationships between supervisors and subordinates (Costigan et al., 2007) where trust is emphasized as a dyadic relational construct(Zaheer, McEvily, & Perrone, 1998). Since employees attend to the words and actions of immediate superior in making judgmentsregarding changes in the work environment it is suggested that trust begins with the supervisors (Reichers, Wanous, & Austin, 1997;Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard, & Werner, 1998). Trust in an employee`s immediate manager can be linked to empowerment andautonomy, supervisory supportiveness and communication (Costigan et al., 2007; Costigan, Insinga, Kransas, Kureshov, & Ilter, 2004;Conger, Kanungo, & Menon, 2000; Ergeneli et al., 2007; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer, 1996). However, there are relatively fewstudies which emphasize subordinates assessment of supervisors’ trustworthiness in the development of trust (Ergeneli et al., 2007).

A number of studies decompose the trust construct suggesting that trust evolves from a pattern of careful, rational thinking(cognition-based) coupled with an evaluation of the trust partners feelings, instincts and intuition (affect-based), (Costigan et al.,2006; Ergeneli et al., 2007; McAllister, 1995; Morrow et al., 2004;Williams, 2001). Ergeneli et al. (2007) study reports a significantrelationship between cognitive trust and overall perceptions of psychological empowerment. However, affect trust was found onlyto influence the impact dimension of the construct. In the context of our study we suggest that both cognitive and affect-basedelements of trust are critical for the development of managers` overall psychological empowerment but that each dimension oftrust has a specific influence on the different factors within the psychological empowerment construct.

2.4. Cognition-based trust and psychological empowerment

Trust is cognition-based in that people choose in whom they trust, in which respects and under what conditions. Choice isbased on cognitive assessments of all empirical evidence of trustworthiness including competence, responsibility, reliability anddependability (Costigan et al., 2006; McAllister, 1995; Morrow et al., 2004). Additionally, evidence that the trust partners`behaviour is consistent with norms of reciprocity and fairness is vital to the development of trust (De Cremer, 2005; Mayer et al.,1995; Zhu et al., 2004). Such behaviour is referred to as ‘integrity’ and relates to how stated principles match actions (Mayer et al.,1995; Simons, 1999). Undistorted communications, actions followingwords and consistency of behaviour are important signals oftrustworthiness to employees in this respect (De Cremer, 2005; Simons, 1999). Furthermore, professional credentials, such as anindividuals` ability serve as signals of their trustworthiness. Ability, according to Mayer et al. (1995) includes functional/specificcompetencies, technical competencies, interpersonal competence, and business sense/judgement. Under the Soviet regimeRussians were distrustful of authority figures, (Ashwin & Popov, 2006; Welter, Kautonen, Chepurenko, Malieva, & Venassaar,2004) where inconsistency of leader behaviour and incompetence was less acceptable in the high power-distance culture(Costigan et al., 2006). In this environment, employees satisfaction with their superiors tended to be based on the superior`stechnical competencies. It is likely therefore, that in the Russian work environment, cognitive trust is developed when the leaderappears knowledgeable, competent and displays integrity. This leads tomanagers` willingness to depend on organizational leaderswith confident expectations for competent and honest future action (Mayer et al., 1995; Wang & Clegg, 2002). In this waycognitive trust acts as a form of interpersonal exchange based on the norm of reciprocity (Tzafir, 2006). As Russian organizationsprogress their ambitions of global competitiveness, leaders must encourage managers to embrace the change necessary to fulfilthese ambitions. This is achieved through a leader's articulation of the organizations vision and mission. Through managers`perception of leaders` competence and integrity, they will likely attend to the leaders’ representation of the organizations desiredvalue system based on the norm of reciprocity. This creates congruence between the managers` own values and judgements withthose of the organizations. This in turn provides managers with experienced meaning as part of the psychological empowermentprocess. Thus we propose:

Proposition 1a. Managers’ cognition-based trust in organizational leaders is positively associated with their experiencedmeaning for psychological empowerment.

Additionally, since it is suggested that until managers feel informed about an organization’s mission, they won't feel capable oftaking initiative (Kanter, 1983) we propose that cognitive trust influences the impact factor of our psychological empowerment

205H. Barton, L.C. Barton / Human Resource Management Review 21 (2011) 201–208

construct. In receiving greater insight the organization’s mission, managers are more likely to understand how they can make adifference by influencing strategic, administrative or operating outcomes to achieve this mission. Hence we propose that:

Proposition 1b. Managers’ cognition-based trust in organizational leaders is positively associated with their experienced impactfor psychological empowerment.

2.5. Affect-based trust and psychological empowerment

Affective foundations for trust consist of the emotional bonds between individuals. People make emotional investments ininterpersonal trust relationships within organizations, express genuine care and concern for the welfare of partners, they believein the intrinsic virtue of such relationships, with the confidence that such sentiments are reciprocated (McAllister, 1995;Parayitam & Dooley, 2007). Feelings of warmth and compassion, care and concern expressed by leaders for fellow workers andtheir reciprocation result in affect-based trust. Affect-based trust therefore, influences the way individuals interpret information,particularly in the absence of cognitive signals (Morrow et al., 2004; Parayitam&Dooley, 2007). Such feelings are termed emphaticconcern (Davis, 1980) and go beyond feeling what the other person feels to include sympathetic feelings for the person in need(Eisenberg, 2000). In a collectivist culture such as Russia, employees expect their organization to take care of them like a familydoes (Elenkov, 1998). Consequently, collectivism does provide a foundation for affect-based trust where networks of trustedco-workers already exist within Russian organizations and influence attitudes and behaviours. Yet within Russian organizations,leaders tend to be less concerned aboutmaintaining close relationshipswith their employees and trying to understand and share theirperspectives (Eisenberg&Strayer, 1987).We argue that formanagers to feel empowered, leadersmust demonstrate affect-based trustso as to provide an atmosphere of psychological safety whereby managers becomemore willing to accept criticism, discuss mistakesand express their thoughts freely (Erdem & Ozen, 2003). This is particularly important in the Russian context where managers aremoreused to being constrained by defined role expectations, the result of a strongobedience culture andharsh punishment (Fey et al.,2004). Affect-based trust in leaders provides managers with the perception of support to exercise their empowered roles. Frequentinteractionwithmanagers creates a reality that guides and directs employees and enables them to feel competent in the performanceof tasks (Humborstad et al., 2008). Thus we propose:

Proposition 2a. Managers’ affect-based trust in organizational leaders is positively associated with their feeling of competence.

Individualized information on employee performance provided by leaders also helps create and reinforce a feeling ofcompetence and confirms to employees that they are valuable organizational members (Spreitzer, 1995; Spreitzer et al., 1997).This creates an environment of psychological empowerment where managers` are more likely to explore ideas, communicateopenly and work towards group goals since this promotes fuller processing of information provided by other organizationalmembers (Parayitam & Dooley, 2007). This convinces managers` to exercise their self-determination whereby they mayconfidently seek to gain better control of their work environment through trusting their leaders. This enables them to get involvedin contributing to the overall achievement of organization goals (Chan et al., 2008). If the organization, through its leaders, is seento be concerned about the employee's well-being, this creates an emotional debt to the organization on behalf of the employee incollectivist cultures. Based on the norm of reciprocity in the relationship, a high level of organizational support perceived byemployees leads to stronger feelings of obligation to return the favour by putting in more effort to their role. Thus we propose:

Proposition 2b. Managers’ affect-based trust in organizational leaders is positively associated with their feeling of self-determination.

As the four factors of psychological empowerment combine additively to determine the extent of psychological empowermentexperienced by employees (Spreitzer, 1995), cognitive and affect-based trust in leaders act as antecedents to high levels ofmanagers experienced empowerment.

2.6. The mutually reinforcing nature of trust and psychological empowerment

Trust between managers and leaders is likely to continuously develop as managers` experiential process of learning about thetrustworthiness of leaders develops through interaction over time (Mayer et al., 1995;Williams, 2001). In terms of cognitive trust,managers` will assess leaders` integrity via the degree of congruence between the values expressed by their words and thoseexpressed through action.

It is argued that some level of cognition-based trust is necessary for affect-based trust to develop since baseline expectations formanager reliability and dependability must bemet before employeeswill invest further in the relationship (McAllister, 1995). Thisallows the sequential development of affect-based trust (McAllister, 1995; Williams, 2001; Zucker, 1986). Affect-based trustbecomes more important as a workplace relationship intensifies (Costigan et al., 2006). Trust based on care and concern is deeper(less superficial) than trust based primarily on cognitive perceptions which is regarded as more common and superficial (Costiganet al., 2006; McAllister, 1995). Consequently, as interaction in the interpersonal relationship between managers and leadersdevelops the extent of psychological empowerment experienced by managers will likely increase. Again, based on the norm ofreciprocity, increased felt empowerment translates into managers` future intentions to place their trust in organizational leaders.

206 H. Barton, L.C. Barton / Human Resource Management Review 21 (2011) 201–208

Reciprocity in the relationship is based on managers` continual and additional evidence of leaders` competent, honest andbenevolent actions. This allows leaders to exchange the legitimate power and the control that they had over managers withmanagement practices that emphasize support and co-operation in the relationship (Chan et al., 2008). In this respect, trust andpsychological empowerment becomemutually reinforcing. This, we suggest is important for managers in Russian organizations asthey continue to cope with change and uncertainty brought about through economic transition. Thus we propose:

Proposition 3. The relationship between trust and psychological empowerment is mutually reinforcing such that a high degree offelt empowerment encourages greater cognitive and affect-based trust in organizational leaders.

3. Conclusions and implications

As the Russian Federation furthers its ambitions towards global competitiveness it is necessary that organizational leadersexchange the legitimate power, control and supervision that they have over their employees with management practices thatemphasize support and co-operation. Through our exploration of the relationship between cognitive and affect-based trust andpsychological empowermentwe illustrate how such an approach to leadership can be achieved in a work environment characterisedby high power-distance and collectivism.

We suggest that managers` cognitive and affect-based trust are predictors of overall psychological empowerment; a set of fourcognitions (meaning, impact, competence and self-determination) that act as an intrinsicmotivator allowing employees to take personalownership of their jobs, satisfy their need for power, reinforce their personal self-efficacy beliefs and to exercise self-determination.Managers` cognitive and affect-based trust in organizational leaders permits a break with the traditional perceptions of managerialauthority that have typically constrained employees` feelings of empowerment in this context. Additionally, this helps reduce theanxiety faced by Russian managers as they cope with the ongoing transition to a market economy. We propose that cognitive trustspecifically influences themeaning and impact dimensions of psychological empowerment and that affect-based trust influences thecompetence and self-determination factors of the construct. Furthermore, we contend that the relationship between cognitive andaffect-based trust and psychological empowerment becomes mutually reinforcing. This we contend is due to managers` experientialprocess of learning about the trustworthiness of leaders developed from interaction as the working relationship develops.

A number of important implications derive from our study. Successful leadership approaches within Russian organizations willbe dependent on effectively encouraging co-operation so that managers work autonomously in the pursuit of the organizationsvision. At the same time, leaders must emphasize benefits to the collective, by demonstrating care and support in their leadershipapproach. To achieve this, leaders must emphasize their trustworthiness. Russian organizational leaders need to acknowledge thatmanagers perceive trustworthiness from both cognitive and affective assessments of available evidence. In building positivecognitive perceptions of their trustworthiness Russian leaders need to emphasize their managerial credentials, technicalcompetence and professional qualifications, as these act as clear signals fromwhich employeesmay develop cognition-based trust.Additionally they must act fairly and consistently in dealings with managers. They should be open and honest in communicationsregarding pertinent aspects of the organization’s mission and organizational performance.

In order to develop positive affect-based assessments of their trustworthiness leaders must demonstrate that they clearlyunderstand their employees` needs, indicate that they are interested in listening and responding constructively and caringly byproviding individual performance related feedback. This will require more frequent interaction with managers than has normallybeen the tradition within the Russian work environment. Such interaction will allow leaders to demonstrate they are also strongteam leaders providing guidance, encouragement and support. In this way, leaders are perceived more as effective groupmembers, rather than hierarchical authority figures, allowing power and control for organizational performance to be shared.

4. Limitations

Our study focuses on the role of trust in encouraging feelings of empowerment in managers within Russian organizations. Wehave highlighted that the relationship in this context is influenced by power-distance and collectivism. However, the potential ofover simplifying issues in practice is acknowledged. Arguably, it would also be useful to take a more complex and in-depthapproach which incorporates additional facets of the Russian culture and attempt to explain how each influence the relationshipbetween the constructs in our model. Wemight therefore, have included additional cultural values such as uncertainty avoidance,masculinity, and long-term orientation in our exploration (Hofstede, 1980; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004).However, the literature suggests that the dimensions of power-distance and collectivism are especially useful in explainingdifferences across national cultures, (Ralston et al., 2007) and that power-distance and collectivism particularly characterize theRussian culture (Fletcher & Perry, 2001; Hofstede, 1980; Triandis et al., 1988).

Furthermore, in attempting to identify the antecedents to managers felt empowerment within the Russian context we havesuggested that trust is critical. However, several studies suggest a number of additional individual and organizationalcharacteristics that have a bearing on employees` feelings of empowerment. These include for example, locus of control, self-esteem, self-concept and rewards (Koberg et al., 1999; Spreitzer, 1995). Notwithstanding the potentially important insights thatthese additional characteristics may afford, we emphasize the role of trust in our model owing to the particular features of theRussian cultural context.

Finally, we propose that the relationship between managers` trust in leaders and psychological empowerment is mutuallyreinforcing such that a high degree of felt empowerment by managers encourages greater cognitive and affect-based trust in

207H. Barton, L.C. Barton / Human Resource Management Review 21 (2011) 201–208

organizational leaders. We have not undertaken to explore the potential mutually reinforcing nature of trust between managersand leaders in encouraging managers` feelings of empowerment. However, we acknowledge that such a relational approach totrust reciprocity might be beneficial, explaining further how feelings of empowerment might be encouraged. As such anexploration of leader`s trust in their managers might provide further insight in this domain.

References

Alexashin, Y., & Blenkinsopp, J. (2005). Changes in Russian managerial values: A test of the convergence proposition. International Journal of Human ResourceManagement, 16(3), 427−444.

Ashwin, S., & Popov, I. (2006, August 8). Professional in a cold climate: Responses to economic transition in Russia. Human Resource Management, 17, 1211−1425.Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. The American Psychologist, 40, 1175−1184.Chan, Y. H., Taylor, R., & Markham, S. (2008). The role of subordinates' trust in a social exchange driven psychological empowerment process. Journal of Managerial

Issues, 20(4), 444−467.Christopher, R., Probst, T., Martocchio, J., Drasgow, F. and Lawler, J. “Empowerment and Continuous Improvement in the United States, Mexico, Poland and India:

Predicting Fit on the Basis of the Dimensions of Power-Distance and Individualism”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85: 5, 643–658.Conger, J., Kanungo, R., & Menon, S. (2000). Charismatic leadership and follower effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(7), 747−767.Costigan, R. D., Insinga, R. C., Berman, J. J., Ilter, S. S., Kranas, G., & Kureshov, V. A. (2006). The effect of employee trust of the supervisor on enterprising behaviour: A

cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Business and Psychology, 21(2), 273−291.Costigan, R. D., Insinga, R. C., Berman, J. J., Ilter, S. S., Kransas, G., & Kureshov, V. (2007). A cross-cultural study of supervisory trust. International Journal of Manpower,

27(8), 764−787.Costigan, R. D., Insinga, R. C., Kransas, G., Kureshov, V., & Ilter, S. S. (2004). Predictors of employee trust of their CEO: A three country study. Journal of Managerial

Issues, 16(2), 197−216.Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalogue of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10(4), 85.De Cremer, D. (2005). Procedural and distributive justice effects moderated by organizational identification. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(1/2), 4−13.Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation, and moral development. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 665−697.Eisenberg, N., & Strayer, J. (1987). Critical issues in the study of empathy. In N. Eisenberg, & J. Strayer (Eds.), Empathy and its development (3–16). Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press.Elenkov, D. (1998). Can American management concepts work in Russia? A cross-cultural comparative study. California Management Review, 40(4), 133−142.Erdem, F., & Ozen, J. (2003). Cognitive and affective dimensions of trust in developing team performance. Team Performance Management, 9(5/6), 131−135.Ergeneli, A., Saglam, A. G., & veMetin, S. (2007). Psychological empowerment: Its relationship to cognition and affect-based trust in immediate managers and some

demographic factors. Journal of Business Research, 60, 41−49.Fey, C. E., & Denison, D. R. (1998). Organizational culture and effectiveness: Can American theory be applied in Russia? Organizational Science, 14(6), 668−706.Fey, C. F., & Denison, D. R. (2003). Organizational Culture and Effectiveness: Can American Theory be Applied in Russia? Organizational Science, 14, 686−706.Fey, C. E., Pavlovskaya, A., & Tang, N. (2004). Does one shoe fit everyone? “A Comparison of Human Resource Management in Russia, China, and Finland.

Organizational Dynamics, 33(1), 79−97.Fletcher, C., & Perry, E. L. (2001). Performance appraisal and feedback: a consideration of national culture and a review of contemporary research and future trends.

In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. Kepir-Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology, Sage, London, 1(pp. 127−145).

Gratchev, M. V., Rogovsky, N. G., & Rakitski, B. V. (2007). Leadership and culture in Russia: The case of transitional economy. In J. S. Chhokar, F. Broadbeck, & R. J.House (Eds.), Culture and leadership across the world—The Globe book of in-depth studies of 25 societies: Psychology Press.

Hardy, C., & Leiba-O`Sullivan, S. (1998). The power behind empowerment: Implications for research and practice. Human Relations, 51(4), 451−483.Hofstede, G. H. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.House, R., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies: Sage Publications Inc.Humborstad, S., Humborstad, B., Whitfield, R., & Perry, C. (2008). Implementation of empowerment in Chinese high-power distance organizations. The

International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(7), 1349−1364.Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.Kets De Vries, M. F. R. (2000). A journey into the `Wild East`: Leadership style and organizational practices in Russia. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 67−81.Koberg, C., Wayne Boss, R., & Goodman, E. A. (1999). Antecedents and outcomes of empowerment. Group and Organizational Management, 24(1), 71−91.Linz, S. J., Good, L. K., & Huddleston, P. (2006). Worker morale in Russia: An exploratory study. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(5), 415−437.May, R., Bormann-Young, C., & Ledgerwood, D. (1998). Lessons from Russian human resource management experience. European Management Journal, 16(4),

447−459.Mayer, R., Davis, J., & Schoorman, F. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20 / 3, 709−733.McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal co-operation within organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38,

24−59.McCarthy, D., & Puffer, S. (2002). Corporate governance in Russia: Towards a European, US or Russian model? European Management Journal, 20(6), 630−640.McCarthy, D., Puffer, S., Vishanski, O., & Naumov, A. (2005). Russian Managers in the new Europe: Needs for a new management style. Organizational

Dynamics, 34(3), 231−246.Mills, P. K., & Ungson, G. R. (2003). Reassessing the limits of structural empowerment: Organizational constitution and trust as controls. Academy of Management

Review, 28(1), 143−153.Morrow, J. L., Hansen, M. H., & Pearson, A. W. (2004). The cognitive and affective antecedents of general trust within cooperative organizations. Journal of

Managerial Issues, 16(1), 48−64.Nuissl, H. (2005). Trust in a post-socialist region: A study of East German ICT entrepreneurs` willingness to trust each other. European & Regional Studies, 12,

65−81.Parayitam, S., & Dooley, R. S. (2007). The relationship between conflict and decision outcomes—Moderating effects of cognition and affect-based trust in strategic

decision-making teams. International Journal of Conflict Management, 18.1, 42−73.Pardo del Val, M., & Lloyd, B. (2003). Measuring empowerment. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 24(2), 102−108.Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., & Bommer, W. (1996). Transformational leader behaviours and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction,

commitment, trust and organizational citizenship behaviour. Journal of Management, 22(2), 259−298.Porter, M. (2003). Russian competitiveness: Where do we stand? Presentation, US–Russian Investment Symposium, Boston, Massachusetts, 13 November.Quinn, R. E., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1997, Autumn). The road to empowerment: Seven questions every leader should consider. Organizational Dynamics (pp. 37−49).Ralston, D. A., Holt, D. H., Terpstra, R. H., & Kai-Cheng (1997). The impact of national culture and economic ideology on managerial work values: A study of the

United States, Russia, Japan and China. Journal of International Business Studies, 28, 177−207.Ralston, D. A., Holt, D. H., Terpstra, R. H., & Kai-Cheng, Y. (2007). The impact of national culture and economic ideology on managerial work values: a study of the

United States, Russia, Japan and China. Journal of International Business Studies, 1−19.Ramamoorthy, N., & Carroll, S. J. (1998). Individualism/collectivism orientations and reactions toward alternative human resource management practices. Human

Relations, 51(5), p571.Reichers, A. E., Wanous, J. P., & Austin, J. J. (1997). Understanding cynicism about organizational change. The Academy of Management Executive, 11(1), 44−59.

208 H. Barton, L.C. Barton / Human Resource Management Review 21 (2011) 201–208

Robert, C., Probst, J., Martocchio, J., Drasgow, F., & Lawler, J. (2000). Empowerment and continuous improvement in the United States, Mexico, Poland and India:Predicting fit on the basis of the dimensions of power-distance and individualism. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 643−658.

Ronen, S., & Shenkar, O. (1985). Clustering countries on attitudinal dimensions: A review and synthesis. Academy of Management Review, 10, 435−454.Simons, T. L. (1999). Behaviour integrity as a critical ingredient for transformational leadership. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(2), 89−98.Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5),

1442−1465.Spreitzer, G. M., De Janasz, S. C., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Empowered to lead: The role of psychological empowerment in leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

20(4), 511−517.Spreitzer, G. M., Kizilos, M. A., & Nason, S. W. (1997). A dimensional analysis of the relationships between psychological empowerment and effectiveness,

satisfaction and strain. Journal of Management, 23(5), 679−704.Spreitzer, G. M., & Mishra, A. K. (1999). Giving up control without losing control. Group and Organization Management, 24(2), 155−186.Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An “interpretative” model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management

Review, 15(4), 666−681.Triandis, H., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. (1988). Individualism and collectivism: Cross cultural perspectives on self-in-group relationships.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(2), 323−338.Triandis, H., & Gelfand, M. J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

74(74), 118−128.Tzafir, S. S. (2006). The relationship between trust, HRM practices and firm performance. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(9),

1600−1622.Vadi, M., & Vereshagin, M. (2006). The deposit of collectivism in organizational culture in Russia, some consequences of human resource management. Baltic

Journal of Management, 1(2), 188−200.Vlachoutsicos, C. (1997). Russian collectivism: An invisible fist in the transformation process of Russia. ELIAMEP Working Papers, Hellenic Foundation for European

and Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP), Athens, Greece.Wagner, J., & Moch, M. (1986). Individualism–collectivism: Concept and measure. Group and Organization Management, 11(3), 280−304.Wang, K., & Clegg, S. (2002). Trust and decision making: are managers different in the People's Republic of China and in Australia? Cross Cultural Management

Journal, 9, 30−45.Welter, F., Kautonen, T., Chepurenko, A., Malieva, E., & Venassaar, U. (2004). Trust environments and entrepreneurial behaviour: Exploratory evidence from

Estonia, Germany and Russia. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 12(4), 327−349.Whitener, E. M., Brodt, S. E., Korsgaard, M. A., & Werner, J. M. (1998). Managers as initiators of trust: An exchange relationship framework for understanding

managerial trustworthy behaviour. Academy of Management Review, 23, 513−530.Williams, M. (2001). In whom we trust: Group membership as an affective context for trust development. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 377−396.Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., & Perrone, V. (1998). Does trust really matter? Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance.

Organizational Science, 9(2), 141−159.Zhu, W., May, D., & Avolio, B. (2004). The impact of ethical leadership behaviour on employee outcomes: The roles of psychological empowerment and

authenticity. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 11(1), 16.Zucker, L. G. (1986). Production of trust: Institutional sources of economic structure, 1840–1920. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 8, 53−111.