Journal of Change Management Vol. 9, No.

4, 399 417, December 2009

Affective Commitment to Change and Innovation Implementation Behavior: The Role of Charismatic Leadership and Employees Trust in Top Management
RN MICHAELIS, RALF STEGMAIER & KARLHEINZ SONNTAG BJO
Ruprecht-Karls-University, Heidelberg, Germany

ABSTRACT This questionnaire-based study investigated the relationship between two aspects of leadership (charismatic leadership and trust in top management) and followers innovation implementation behavior. Findings from 194 employees working in R&D teams of a multinational automotive company indicated that charismatic leadership and trust in top management were both positively related to innovation implementation behavior, controlling for followers individual differences, management level, and department afliation. The ndings demonstrate that both relationships were mediated by followers affective commitment to change. Results implicate the need to more closely bond the concepts of affective commitment to change and innovation implementation behavior and consider their connection in future investigations. KEY WORDS : Charismatic leadership, trust in top management, affective commitment to change, innovation implementation

Introduction

Innovation implementation describes the process by which employees become capable and committed to using a particular innovation. It requires innovation adoption: a decision, typically made by senior organizational managers, that employees within the organization will use the innovation in their work (Klein and Sorra, 1996, p. 1055). Implementation failure occurs when, regardless of

rn Michaelis, Institute of Psychology, Ruprecht-Karls-University Heidelberg, Correspondence Address: Dr Bjo Hauptsstrae 47-51, 69117 Heidelberg, Germany. Tel.: 49 6221 54 7358; Fax: 49 6221 54 7390; Email: bjoern.michaelis@uni-hd.de 1469-7017 Print/1479-1811 Online/09/04039919 # 2009 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/14697010903360608

400

B. Michaelis et al.

this decision, employees do not engage in the innovation as frequently or as consistently as required for the potential benets of the innovation to be realized (Klein and Sorra, 1996). The cause for an organizations failure to achieve the intended benets of an innovation it has adopted may, therefore, result from either a failure of implementation or a failure of the innovation itself. Increasingly, organizational analysts support the former explanation suggesting that implementation failure, not innovation failure, leads to an organizations inability to achieve the intended benets of the innovations they adopt (Klein and Sorra, 1996). The understanding of factors that promote employees innovation implementation behavior an individuals consistent and committed use of a particular innovation (Choi and Price, 2005, p. 84) is, therefore, needed. This study refers to an innovation as a technology or practice that an organization is using for the rst time, regardless whether other organizations have previously used the technology or practice (Klein et al., 2001, p. 811). A review of literature by Klein and Knight (2005) has identied several factors which play a critical role in inuencing innovation implementation behavior: the teams or organizations climate for innovation implementation (see Klein et al., 2001; Holahan et al., 2004; Michaelis et al., 2008), management support for innovation implementation (Sharma and Yetton, 2003; Michaelis et al., 2008), and managerial patience (Repenning and Sterman, 2002). Reviewing the above-described key situational factors, leader behaviors may substantially inuence employees innovation implementation behavior. The purpose of this study is to examine charismatic leadership (Bass, 1985, 1990b; Waldman et al., 2004) and employees trust in top management (Whitener et al., 1998) and how they affect employees innovation implementation behavior. Further, the study concentrated on identifying psychological processes by which charismatic leadership and trust in top management are related to innovation implementation behavior. Specically, because commitment to change has been identied as an important aspect of behavioral intention to support change (Herscovitch and Meyer, 2002; Fedor et al., 2006), the study examined the effects of charismatic leadership and trust in top management on employees commitment to actual changes and their innovation implementation behavior. By testing these linkages, this study extends previous literature on innovation implementation behavior in four ways. First, the study investigated how charismatic leadership is related to followers innovation implementation behavior. Second, it examined how trust in top management is related to followers innovation implementation behavior. Third, the study tested whether affective commitment to change mediated these relationships. Fourth, the study goes outside the usual boundaries and combines organizational change and innovation implementation research.
Affective Commitment to Change and Innovation Implementation Behavior

The study explored the role of affective commitment to change to investigate the psychological mechanisms by which charismatic leadership and trust in top management inuence innovation implementation behavior. This article refers

Charismatic Leadership and Employees Trust in Top Management

401

to affective commitment to change as a desire to provide support for the change based on a belief in its inherent benets (Herscovitch and Meyer, 2002, p. 475). Although some scholars studying innovation implementation behavior have included commitment to change as a central component in their theories (Klein and Sorra, 1996), no known studies have empirically tested the mediating role of commitment to change in the context of innovation implementation behavior. This is surprising, given that research has indicated that psychological reactions to a particular innovation determine the ultimate success of innovation implementation (Leonard-Barton, 1988; Hartwick and Barki, 1994). In order to explain why affective commitment to change might be related to employees innovation implementation behavior, Ajzens Theory of Planned Behavior (TpB) (Ajzen, 1985, 1987, 1991) was applied. Ajzens theory has been successfully employed in many studies linking attitudes and behaviors (Conner and Armitage, 1998; Sutton, 1998; Jimmieson et al., 2008). A review of nine meta-analyses for instance, which included the TpB or its predecessor, the Theory of Reasoned Action, provided strong evidence that a persons attitudes determine behavioral intention (Sutton, 1998). Behavioral intention denes the degree to which a person exerts effort to perform a behavior and includes the motivational forces that produce planned behavior. As behavioral intention increases, a person is more likely to perform a behavior. We, therefore, assume that employees attitudes are particularly relevant to organizations willing to implement innovations and to reduce the likelihood of implementation failure, because they determine behavioral intention and decide on the degree to which a person puts effort to perform innovation implementation behavior. Additionally, the study applied a social exchange explanation in order to explain why charismatic leadership and employees trust in top management might be related to followers innovation implementation behavior. Social exchange theories (Homans, 1961; Adams, 1963; Blau, 1964; Gergen, 1969) describe how social relationships are based on the exchange of benets between parties. If charismatic leadership and trust in top management is considered as a perceived benet for employees, social exchange theories suggest that employees will be motivated to reciprocate that benet (Gouldner, 1960), for instance through commitment to change and innovation implementation behavior.
Charismatic Leadership and Innovation Implementation Behavior

Charismatic leadership has been dened as the ability of a leader to exercise diffuse and intense inuence over the beliefs, values, behavior, and performance of others through his or her own behavior, beliefs, and personal example (House et al., 1991, p. 366). Unlike the traditional leadership theories, which emphasized rational processes, charismatic leadership theory focuses on emotions and values, acknowledges the importance of symbolic behavior and the role of the leader in making events meaningful for followers. Charismatic leaders transform followers needs, values, preferences, and aspirations. They motivate followers to make personal sacrices in order to achieve the mission articulated by the leader and to perform above and beyond the call of duty (House et al., 1991, p. 364). Followers motivation become less driven by self-interests and is shifted

402

B. Michaelis et al.

towards serving the interests of the larger collective. Charismatic leadership usually emphasise leaders at or near the top of the organization (Waldman et al., 2004; Agle et al., 2006) or even at the societal level (see Fiol et al., 1999; Seyranian and Bligh, 2008). Conceptual works, however, tend to emphasize multiple hierarchical levels (Yukl, 1999) and experiments on rst-level leader follower relationships (De Cremer and van Knippenberg, 2002). The latter perspective implies that not only top-executives can motivate followers by articulating a compelling vision or by providing a behavioral role model, but also non-executives at lower management levels. Therefore, the study followed Bass (1990a) and Conger et al. (2000) who argue that charismatic leaders can also be found at levels below the executive suite and investigated charismatic leadership at lower and middle management positions. Another leadership theory which takes a very similar approach in explaining effective leadership processes is transformational leadership. Various scholars (Dvir et al., 2002; House and Aditya, 1997) conclude that transformational and charismatic leadership have only minor differences with a strong convergence among the empirical ndings. Transformational leadership has been already extensively studied in the context of innovation research in recent years (Mumford and Licuanan, 2004) and has demonstrated its effectiveness on innovation processes, such as creativity (Jung, 2001; Jaussi and Dionne, 2003; Shin and Zhou, 2003), improvement-oriented voice (Detert and Burris, 2007), and organizational innovation (Jung et al., 2003). Despite the theoretical signicance of charismatic leadership and its potential enhancement of innovation outcomes, no studies have contributed to an understanding of the mechanisms linking this type of leadership and innovation outcomes such as followers innovation implementation behavior. This is surprising, given that scholars have long bemoaned the paucity of research on mediating mechanisms in the relationship between leadership and innovation implementation behavior (Beyer and Trice, 1978; Tornatzky and Klein, 1982; Klein et al., 2001; Klein and Knight, 2005). Fiol et al. (1999) summarizes the similarities among various concepts of charismatic leadership by noting that all of them share the common perspective that effective leaders articulate visions that are based on normative ideological values, offer innovative solutions to major social problems, stand for nonconservative if not radical change, and generally emerge and are more effective under conditions of social stress and crisis (Fiol et al., 1999, p. 450). In other words, charismatic leadership causes followers to be more receptive to organizational change. Specically, when a leader is charismatic and followers identify with the leader, encouragement to re-examine assumptions, the status quo, and old ways of doing things are likely to be successful. Under these circumstances, followers are more likely to identify and concentrate on the positive outcomes of the change-initiative instead of on worries and concerns. This enhanced concentration on positive outcomes of the change-initiative should lead to high levels of affective commitment to change. Charismatic leaders provide a behavioral role model and articulate a compelling vision to energize followers to perform beyond expectations (Shamir et al., 1993).

Charismatic Leadership and Employees Trust in Top Management

403

They afliate the self-concepts of followers with the mission articulated by the leader (Fiol et al., 1999; Seyranian and Bligh, 2008). By doing so, they generate a common frame of reference. Consequently, followers of charismatic leaders are likely to be able to recognize the need for the use of a particular innovation and develop high levels of affective commitment to change. Likewise, charismatic leaders increase self-efcacy by evaluating positively, showing condence in followers ability, and emphasizing followers ties to the collective (Shamir et al., 1993). According to the social exchange theory, these behaviors are likely to lead to heightened levels of affective commitment to change because followers are likely to repay their leader for support and encouragement. Consequently, followers respond more likely to the change-initiative and accept the change message (House and Mitchell, 1974). More importantly, followers are much more likely to persist when they perceive their environment to be supportive (Bandura, 1986). In addition, followers may be encouraged to stay focused on the goals of the change-initiative and to keep trying even when they suffer a setback. Taken together, followers personal support and encouragement are likely to enhance followers affective commitment to change. According to Ajzens TpB, an increase of affective commitment to change (behavioral intention) contributes to the prediction of change-relevant behavior. Building on this notion, the study suggests that followers with high levels of affective commitment to change are more likely to exhibit innovation implementation behavior. Subsequently, the ndings suggest that charismatic leadership contributes to affective commitment to change, which, in turn, contributes to innovation implementation behavior. Thus:
Hypothesis 1. The positive relationship between charismatic leadership and employees innovation implementation behavior will be mediated by employees affective commitment to change. Trust in Top Management and Innovation Implementation Behavior

Scholars have identied trust to play an important role in innovation and change research (Armenakis et al., 1993). Trust has been dened as a willingness to be vulnerable to others, based on the prior belief that others are trustworthy (Sitkin and Roth, 1993; Mishra, 1996; Mayer et al., 2007). Based on this denition, trust in top management was conceptualized as an attitude held by employees toward the leadership of the organization that indicates a willingness to be vulnerable to top management (Korsgaard et al., 2002). The concept of trust has already demonstrated its effectiveness in the context of organizational change. Armenakis et al. (1993) for instance, emphasized the importance of change agents credibility, trustworthiness, and sincerity in creating employees readiness for change. Additional research by Reinke (2003) has demonstrated that the level of trust between employees and their leaders is the strongest predictor of employees acceptance of a new appraisal system. Similarly, Condrey (1995) found that employees with greater trust in their organization evaluated a new human resource management system more positively, believed that their supervisors had a fundamental role in the change process, and were more motivated to become involved in

404

B. Michaelis et al.

the project. Still, despite the theoretical signicance of this concept and its potential enhancement of innovation implementation behavior, no studies have contributed to an understanding of the mechanisms linking trust in top management and innovation outcomes such as followers innovation implementation behavior. Research demonstrates that trust in top management provides employees with an understanding of managements good intentions (Harvey et al., 2003). Employees, who trust their top management, believe in the value of the innovation and think that they and the organization will benet from it, consequently trust in top management should enhance followers affective commitment to change. Specically, individuals with a high degree of trust in top management may feel that they will not be the target of negative attacks or manipulation, because they believe that the intentions of the upper management are trustworthy (Byrne et al., 2005). Further, they feel that they are respected by the organization and have some opportunity to protect their own interests (Korsgaard et al., 2002). Under these circumstances, followers are more likely to concentrate on the positive outcomes of change-initiatives instead of constantly questioning or criticizing them. Consequently, followers who perceive that the organization treats them with respect and dignity through difcult times of change should have higher levels of affective commitment to change than those who believe that they are treated unfairly. Likewise, trust in top management, which is mostly evoked through open communication and disclosure, may give individuals a sense of control by feeling protected by the good intentions of upper management (Byrne et al., 2005). These behaviors are likely to lead to affective commitment to change because by providing support and encouragement, followers are more likely to respond to changeinitiatives and accept the change message (House and Mitchell, 1974). Taken together, trust in top management is likely to be associated with high levels of affective commitment to change. Finally, according to the social exchange theory, the relationship between the organization and followers consists of followers perceptions of organization obligations on the one hand (that is, what they believe the organization has promised) such as advancement opportunities, training, and job security; and their perceived obligations towards the organization on the other hand (what they believe they owe the organization in return) such as loyalty, hard work and commitment (Robinson et al., 1994). Specically, when followers feel high levels of trust in top management, they are more willing to cooperate within and have greater attachment to this exchange relationship (Whitener et al., 1998), leading to higher levels of affective commitment to change. Building on the notion of Ajzens TpB, it can be argued that followers with high levels of affective commitment to change are more likely to exhibit innovation implementation behavior. Subsequently, its is argued that trust in top management contributes to affective commitment to change, which, in turn, contributes to innovation implementation behavior. Thus:
Hypothesis 2. The positive relationship between trust in top management and employees innovation implementation behavior will be mediated by employees affective commitment to change.

Charismatic Leadership and Employees Trust in Top Management Method Participants and Procedure

405

Data were collected from employees working in a multinational automotive corporation located in Germany, which had introduced a new computer software within the nine months prior to this study. The software is based on the companys email program and developed to support team and project tasks. A successful implementation of this software implied a paperless ofce that could be achieved through information technologies and new work procedures. For instance, employees were prompted to use this software for their audit trails, calendar, address and meeting administration, ling, and absence planning. All information was accessible in every German subsidiary. Furthermore, employees were encouraged to create their own prole enabling the software to inform them about new and relevant documents. The utilization of this software was mandatory and consequently played a central role for every employee. All employees in the sample held Research & Development (R&D) jobs in the truck development division, were in operational, lower- and middle-management positions, and were working in the companys headquarters in Germany. The questionnaire administration took place online. Employees received a link via email, which allowed them to access the online questionnaire. The link was sent out by department heads, with an appeal to ll out the questionnaire within a period of four weeks. Respondents were allowed to complete the questionnaire during normal work hours in front of their own computer. Participation was voluntary and condential in all cases. The study collated usable responses from 194 of the possible 270 employees, which represents a 72% net response rate. Respondents were working in 10 different teams within two departments, namely, truck vehicle testing (40%) and truck vehicle systems (60%). The mean age of the responding employees was 43 years (SD 9.11). A majority of the respondents were male (89%), held lower level management positions (78 %), had been with the company for more than 10 years (65%), and reported college-level education (technical college degree, 40%; university degree, 32%; completed apprenticeship, 10%).
Measures

If not already available, German versions of all measures were created following Brislins (1980) translation-back-translation procedure.
Charismatic leadership

The German version of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), Form 5X-Short (Avolio and Bass, 1995), developed by Felfe and Goihl (2002), which has four items for the charismatic leadership scale (a 0.91) were utilized. Employees were asked to refer to their direct workgroup leader. Items assessed the degree to which followers admired their leader for his or her outstanding skills and abilities or to which degree their leader inspired them. Sample items included, The leader, which I refer to impresses and fascinates me with his or her unique personality and The leader, which I refer to is consistently able to

406

B. Michaelis et al.

inspire me. On a ve-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), employees indicated how well each statement tted their leader.
Trust in top management

Trust in top management was assessed with an adapted three-item scale (a 0.78), developed by Cook and Wall (1980). Sample items included, I feel condent that top managment will always treat me fairly and top management would try to gain an advantage by deceiving workers (reverse-scored). On a ve-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), employees indicated how well each item represented their feeling of trust in the companys top management.
Affective commitment to change

Affective commitment to change was assessed with a six-item scale (a 0.88), developed by Herscovitch and Meyer (2002), concentrating on followers affect experienced during the change-initiative. Sample items were, I believe in the value of this change and I think that management is making a mistake by introducing this change (reverse-scored). On a ve-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), employees indicated how well each item represented their feelings about the introduced software.
Innovation implementation behavior

Employees innovation implementation behavior was assessed with an adapted version of a six-item scale (a 0.84) from Choi and Price (2005). Sample items included, I heavily use this innovation at work and I use this innovation for task-related communication. On a ve-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), employees indicated the extent to which each of the six items applied to them in terms of employing the introduced software.
Control variables

Given the critical role of followers characteristics in the leadership process, particularly charismatic leadership (Conger and Kanungo, 1988; Conger et al., 2000), participants age and gender were assessed. Dummy-coded variables were included to control for the variance in perception of leaders charisma that could be attributed to followers age (age up to 40 years, age above 40 years) and gender (male, female). In addition, employees hierarchical levels might inuence their ratings of the study variables. Charismatic leadership, for instance, occurs to a greater extent at higher hierarchical echelons (Shamir et al., 1993), and employees may tend to rate their job characteristics more favorably the higher their hierarchical positioning (Robie et al., 1998). Hence, respondents hierarchy level were included (operational/ lower management and middle management) as dummy-coded variables. Finally, prior research indicates that employees department afliation might inuence their innovation implementation behavior (Krause, 2004). Consequently, department afliation was dummy-coded, to prevent department differences form biasing the relationships obtained (that is, truck vehicle testing and truck vehicle systems).

Charismatic Leadership and Employees Trust in Top Management Analytical Strategy

407

The data analyses was conducted utilizing structural equations modeling (AMOS 16.0). The study followed Anderson and Gerbings (1988) widely recommended procedure and added the discriminent validity of the study variables (a conformatory factor analysis of the measurement model), prior to assessing the t of the overall structural model. Consistent with other researchers (Bommer et al., 2005), four dummy-coded control variables were included to the measurement and structural model. This approach is appropriate if: (a) the control variables are theoretically justied; (b) the model complexity is not overstressed; and (c) the sample size is ample (Fletcher et al., 2006). Further, an approach described by Marsh et al. (1989) was utilized and resorted items randomly into item parcels, to gain an adequate sample size to parameter ratio. A x2/df ratio test, a root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) index, and a comparative t index (CFI) were all used to assess the t of the different models to the data. A x2/df ratio less than 3 indicates an acceptable model t (Kline, 1998). A RMSEA below 0.08 and a CFI above 0.09 (DiLalla et al., 2000; Cunningham, 2006) indicate that the specied model ts well with the observed data.
Results

Means, standard deviations, bivariate correlations, and Cronbachs alpha values for all study variables are presented in Table 1. As shown, innovation implementation behavior is signicantly and positively correlated with charismatic leadership, trust in top management, and affective commitment to change. Affective commitment to change is signicantly and positively correlated with charismatic leadership and trust in top management.
Measurement Model Testing

The measurement model consisted of the four control variables and the four focal variables. The study followed various scholars (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986; Cunningham, 2006) and compared the measurement model with an alternative model and a one factor model to check which model t the observed data best. In the rst model, the single factor model, all items were forced on a single factor. In the second, alternative model, charismatic leadership and trust in top management were forced on one factor, affective commitment to change on a second factor, and innovation implementation behavior on a third factor. In the third model, the measurement model, items were forced according to their scales on the factors charismatic leadership, trust in top management, affective commitment to change, and innovation implementation behavior. The CFA results show that the measurement model (x2 92.92; df 53; p , 0.001; x2/df 1.80; RMSEA 0.06; CFI 0.95), relative to both the alternative model (x2 198.02; df 60; p , 0.001; x2/df 3.30; RMSEA 0.11; CFI 0.83), and the single factor model (x2 522.09; df 71; p , 0.001; x2/df 7.35; RMSEA 0.18; CFI 0.46) provided a better t to the data. These results also indicate that common method bias is not a major concern, because if method

408 B. Michaelis et al.

Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among all variablesa Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Age Gender Management level Department afliation Charismatic leadership Trust in top management Affective commitment to change Innovation implementation behavior n 176 189 186 146 193 193 187 194 Mean 0.43 0.92 0.78 0.39 3.07 2.43 3.61 3.06 s.d. 0.50 0.28 0.41 0.49 0.92 0.89 0.82 0.82 1 0.09 0.24 2 0.08 2 0.11 2 0.08 2 0.11 2 0.14 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

2 0.10 0.09 2 0.06 2 0.07 0.07 0.02

2 0.06 2 0.02 2 0.30 2 0.17 2 0.12

2 0.07 0.17 0.11 0.06

(0.91) 0.20 0.19 0.17

(0.78) 0.32 0.16

(0.88) 0.37

(0.84)

Note: Internal consistency reliabilities (Cronbachs alpha) are on the diagonal, in parentheses. Age, gender, management level, and division afliation were dummy-coded. p , 0.05, p , 0.01, p , 0.001.

Charismatic Leadership and Employees Trust in Top Management

409

variance is a signicant problem, a simple model (e.g. single factor model) should t the data as well as a more complex model (Korsgaard and Roberson, 1995, p. 663). Thus, the measures can be viewed as distinct and were kept for analysis.
Hypotheses Testing

The results of the structural equations modeling are presented in Table 2. The t indices for the proposed model fullled above described criteria (x2 134.39; df 69; p , 0.001; x2/df 1.95; RMSEA 0.07; CFI 0.92), revealing that the data were consistent with the proposed model. Figure 1 shows the pathway estimates for the hypothesized model indicating that all assumed paths were signicant. Specically, affective commitment to change was positively linked to charismatic leadership (b 0.18, p , 0.05) and trust in top management (b 0.33, p , 0.001), and it was also linked signicantly positively to innovation implementation behavior (b 0.36, p , 0.001). For signicance testing of the indirect effects postulated in the mediation hypotheses, the study followed recommendations by MacKinnon et al. (2007). As postulated in Hypothesis 1, commitment to change mediates the relation between charismatic leadership and innovation implementation behavior (indirect effect 0.06; p , 0.001). As suggested in Hypothesis 2, commitment to change also mediates the relation between trust in top management and innovation implementation behavior (indirect effect 0.12; p , 0.001). Although the hypothesized mediated model provided an adequate t to the data, the study tested three alternative models and checked for partial mediations (Cunningham, 2006). Alternative models were all tested within the proposed model. The study tested models which add the pathway between charismatic leadership and innovation implementation behavior (Partially-mediated Model A), the pathway between trust in top management and innovation implementation
Table 2. Results of structural equations modelling Models Single-factor model Alternative model Measurement model Hypothesized (fully-mediated) model Alternative Models (nested within hypothesized model) Partially-mediated (A) Partially-mediated (B) Partially-mediated (C) df 71 60 53 69 68 68 67

x2
522.09 198.02 92.92 134.39 133.70 134.34 133.69

x2/df
7.35 3.30 1.80 1.95 2.00 1.98 2.00

Dx2

RMSEA 0.18 0.11 0.06 0.07

CFI 0.46 0.83 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

0.69 0.05 0.65

0.07 0.07 0.07

Note: Partial mediated models: (A) addition of pathway between charismatic leadership and innovation implementation behaviour; (B) addition of pathway between trust in top management and innovation implementation behaviour; (C) addition of pathway between charismatic leadership/trust in top management and innovation implementation behavior; Dx2 values are calculated by comparison with adjacent, less restrictive model. Controls: age, gender, management level, department afliation. p , 0.05; p , 0.01; p , 0.001: N 194.

410

B. Michaelis et al.

Figure 1. Pathway estimates for hypothesized model Notes: Structural pathways estimates are completely standardized coefcients; Controls: age, gender, management level, department afliation. aNon-signicant Covariance ( p 0.08). p , 0.05; p , 0.01; p , 0.001

behavior (Partially-mediated Model B), and both pathways (Partially-mediated Model C). Table 2 presents the t indices for the alternative models. The results of the comparison of partially-mediated models A and B with the hypothesized fully mediated model indicate that the change in chi-square is not statistically signicant at the 0.05 level (Dx2, 1 df). Further, the study compared model C with the hypothesized fully mediated model and did not nd a signicant improvement in t at the 0.05 level. Therefore, none of the partially mediated models yield an improvement over the fully mediated model, which makes the more parsimonious (that is restrictive) fully mediated model the preferred model (Mulaik et al., 1989). These results indicate that affective commitment to change mediates the relation between charismatic leadership and innovation implementation behavior and that affective commitment to change also mediates the relation between trust in top management and innovation implementation behavior.
Discussion

Leadership qualities have been linked to several innovation-relevant factors such as subordinates creativity (Jung, 2001; Jaussi and Dionne, 2003; Shin and Zhou, 2003), improvement-oriented voice (Detert and Burris, 2007), organizational innovation (Jung et al., 2003), and social change (Seyranian and Bligh, 2008). However, only a few studies exist investigating leadership and its relation to innovation implementation behavior. Notably, Krause (2004) examined the effects of inuence-based leadership on followers innovation implementation behavior and found a positive relationship. Furthermore, Herold et al. (2008) found a positive relationship between transformational leadership and change commitment. This study found that charismatic leadership is related to innovation implementation behavior and, consequently, identied another leadership construct which plays an important role in promoting followers innovation implementation behavior. It is important to recognize that Krauses (2004), Herold et al. (2008), and the present study have moved the fragmentary research on innovation

Charismatic Leadership and Employees Trust in Top Management

411

implementation behavior (Klein and Knight, 2005) forward by identifying theorybased leadership behaviors, which are benecial for innovation implementation behavior. Second, the study has demonstrated that followers trust in top management is related to innovation implementation behavior. Only a few studies exist that investigate trust in top management in the eld of innovation and change research. In particular, Korsgaard et al. (2002) demonstrated the importance of trust in top management while planning change-initiatives. However, the study has extended prior research in demonstrating that trust in top management is related to the aspect which determines the ultimate success of change-initiatives: innovation implementation behavior. The third and most important contribution of this study is that it identied psychological processes by which charismatic leadership and trust in top management are related to innovation implementation behavior. By investigating charismatic leadership and trust in top management simultaneously in one model, the study revealed that trust in top management has a stronger indirect effect through affective commitment to change on innovation implementation behavior than charismatic leadership. This result indicates that both sentiments regarding top management and immediate managers are important and complementary for successful innovation implementation. However, it also shows that trust in top management might be even more important, because of its stronger relation to followers affective commitment to change. Klein and Sorra (1996) emphasized the role of commitment to change as a mechanism by which situational factors inuence innovation implementation behavior. However, no known studies have empirically tested this relationship in actual work settings. Most studies, so far, have concentrated on investigating situational factors that either inuence psychological mechanisms, such as followers affective commitment to change (Herold et al., 2007), or outcome variables, such as innovation implementation behavior, separately (Axtell et al., 2000; Choi and Price, 2005). This research has gone outside these boundaries and combined organizational change and innovation implementation research. Moreover, research in the context of organizational change has mostly concentrated on negative reactions such as cynicism toward change-initiatives (Bommer et al., 2005). The study extended prior research by explicitly concentrating on a positive reaction affective commitment to change and its relation to charismatic leadership and trust in top management. Thus, the study has contributed to the innovation implementation literature by applying Ajzens TpB and demonstrated its signicance in explaining the inuence of affective commitment to change on innovation implementation behavior.
Limitations and Future Research

Although the study found several encouraging results, it is important to recognize that the current ndings also have several limitations. First, the study used perceptual data because the inuence of the leader and the perceptions of uppermanagement eventually depend on what followers perceive their leader or top management to have done or been like (Bandura, 1989). Nevertheless, future

412

B. Michaelis et al.

research should investigate the inuence of charismatic leadership and trust in top management on followers innovation implementation behavior using data from multiple sources. Second, the cross-sectional design prevents us from a causal interpretation of the relationship between charismatic leadership and trust in top management, respectively, and innovation implementation behavior. Supplemental studies with experimental or longitudinal design and the obtainment of independent or objective conrmation of employees innovation implementation behavior are needed to determine causality. Third, all participants came from one company in the automotive industry and were working in the R&D division. Although this sample helps to control for industry and division effects, employees working in different industries and divisions may respond to innovations in different ways. One might argue, for instance, that employees working in R&D divisions are particularly open to innovations because they have innovation-relevant knowledge and higher levels of autonomy, which leads to innovation implementation behavior (Krause, 2004). Finally, the study indicates that trust in top management is stronger related to affective commitment to change than charismatic leadership. However, it acknowledges that trust in top management might be only more important because it matches the level most responsible for the change studied. Supplemental studies, expanding both constructs to both levels such as top management charisma and trust in direct supervisor, are needed to determine the relative importance of trust and charisma for evoking followers affective commitment to change. Moreover, additional determinants could be integrated into future investigations. Since recent research (Zhou and George, 2003; Amabile et al., 2004; Bono and Ilies, 2006) and this study suggest that emotions play a major role in the innovation-process, and particularly during change-initiatives (Kiefer, 2005; Bartunek et al., 2006), future research might investigate the role of supervisors capability to inuence followers emotions in promoting affective commitment to change and innovation implementation behavior. It is also recognized that there are other mediators, which have not been examined in this study. As indicated by Klein and Sorra (1996), innovation-relevant skills and knowledge are also critical for innovation implementation behavior. Prior research has suggested that supervisory behaviors enhance employees skills and knowledge which, in turn, results in higher levels of innovation implementation behavior (Krause, 2004). Thus, future research might investigate skill and knowledge development as mediators linking charismatic leadership to innovation implementation behavior. Finally, scholars could focus on additional types of leadership and its effects on affective commitment to change and innovation implementation behavior. A promising approach might come from complexity leadership theory (Uhl-Bien et al., 2007), which emphasizes the role of enabling leadership in disseminating innovative products through formal managerial systems.
Practical Implications

Given the consistent positive effects of trust in top management, it may be argued that systematic efforts to enhance this factor is particularly important to companies that want to promote innovation implementation behavior. In order to enhance trust in top management, it should be integrated into the organizations reward

Charismatic Leadership and Employees Trust in Top Management

413

system, leadership guidelines, and company policies. Supervisors could be evaluated by their followers, for instance, on how trustworthy they seem. The results suggest that companies should invest in leadership training and in the selection of charismatic supervisors before initiating the implementation of innovations. Research indicates that charismatic leadership behaviors are trainable (Barling et al., 1996). By training idealized inuence, for example, leaders improve their ability to articulate a vision and to become more effective role models (Awamleh and Gardner, 1999). More specically, by training leaders capability to provide role models in terms of using new innovations and demonstrating the value of these innovations, leaders are most likely to maximize employees affective commitment to change which, in turn, leads to innovation implementation behavior. In addition, by showing affective commitment to change as a mediator, the ndings indicate that managers need to consider the psychological mechanisms by which charismatic leadership and trust in top management are related to innovation implementation behavior. This may lead to a better ability to guide the impact of these inuences to proper psychological processes, resulting in higher levels of innovation implementation behavior.
Conclusion

Leadership, organizational change, and innovation implementation have been, and continue to be, important elds of study for both researchers and practitioners. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the connection between these constructs and the importance of better integrating these three elds of study. In line with these deliberations, the results illustrated the impact of charismatic leadership and trust in top management on affective commitment to change and innovation implementation behavior. Most importantly, the results demonstrate the importance of affective commitment to change, because it functions as a mediator in this relationship. Hence, if successful innovation implementation within organizations requires affective commitment to change, and affective commitment to change is about facilitating innovation implementation, then there is a need to more closely bond these concepts and consider their connection in future investigations.
References
Adams, J.S. (1963) Towards an understanding of inequity, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47(5), pp. 422436. Agle, B.R., Nagarajan, N.J., Sonnenfeld, J.A. and Srinivasan, D. (2006) Does CEO charisma matter? An empirical analysis of the relationships among organizational performance, environmental uncertainty, and top management team perceptions of CEO charisma, Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), pp. 161174. Ajzen, I. (1985) From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior, in: J. Kuhl and J. Beckmann (eds) Action Control: From Cognition to Behavior, pp. 1139 (New York: Springer-Verlag). Ajzen, I. (1987) Attitudes, traits, and actions: a theory of planned behavior, in: L. Berkowitz (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, pp. 163 (New York: Academic Press). Ajzen, I. (1991) The theory of planned behavior, Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), pp. 179211.

414

B. Michaelis et al.

Amabile, T.M., Schatzel, E.A., Moneta, G.B. and Kramer, S.J. (2004) Leader behaviors and the work environment for creativity: perceived leader support, Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), pp. 532. Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988) Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach, Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), pp. 411423. Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G. and Mossholder, K.W. (1993) Creating readiness for organizational change, Human Relations, 46(6), pp. 681703. Avolio, B.J. and Bass, B.M. (1995) Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis: a multi-level framework for examining the diffusion of transformational leadership, Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), pp. 199218. Awamleh, R. and Gardner, W.L. (1999) Perceptions of leader charisma and effectiveness: the effects of vision content, delivery, and organizational performance, Leadership Quarterly, 10(3), pp. 345373. Axtell, C.M., Holman, D.J., Unsworth, K.L., Wall, T.D., Waterson, P.E. and Harrington, E. (2000) Shopoor innovation: facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(3), pp. 265285. Bandura, A. (1986) Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall). Bandura, A. (1989) Human agency in social cognitive theory, American Psychologist, 44(9), pp. 11751184. Barling, J., Weber, T. and Kelloway, E.K. (1996) Effects of transformational leadership training on attitudinal and nancial outcomes: a eld experiment, Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6), pp. 827832. Bartunek, J.M., Rousseau, D.M., Rudolph, J.W. and DePalma, J.A. (2006) On the receiving end: sensemaking, emotion, and assessments of an organizational change initiated by others, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42(2), pp. 182206. Bass, B.M. (1985) Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectation (New York: Free Press). Bass, B.M. (1990a) Bass & Stoddills Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications, 3rd edn (New York: Free Press). Bass, B.M. (1990b) From transactional to transformational leadership: learning to share the vision, Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), pp. 1931. Beyer, J.M. and Trice, H.M. (1978) Implementing Change (New York: Free Press). Blau, P.M. (1964) Exchange and Power in Social Life (New York: John Wiley & Sons). Bommer, W.H., Rich, G.A. and Rubin, R.S. (2005) Changing attitudes about change: longitudinal effects of transformational leader behavior on employee cynicism about organizational change, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(7), pp. 733753. Bono, J.E. and Ilies, R. (2006) Charisma, positive emotions and mood contagion, Leadership Quarterly, 17(4), pp. 317334. Brislin, R.W. (1980) Translation and content analysis of oral and written material, in: H.C. Triandis and J.W. Berry (eds) Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, pp. 389444 (Boston, Allyn and Bacon). Byrne, Z.S., Kacmar, C., Stoner, J. and Hochwarter, W.A. (2005) The relationship between perceptions of politics and depressed mood at work: unique moderators across three levels, Journal of Occuputational Health Psychology, 10(4), pp. 330343. Choi, J.N. and Price, R.H. (2005) The effects of person-innovation t on individual responses to innovation, Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 78(1), pp. 8396. Condrey, S.E. (1995) Reforming human resource management systems: exploring the importance of organizational trust, American Review of Public Administration, 25(4), pp. 341354. Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (1988) The empowerment process: integrating theory and practice, Academy of Management Review, 13(3), pp. 471482. Conger, J.A., Kanungo, R.N. and Menon, S.T. (2000) Charismatic leadership and follower effects, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(7), pp. 747767. Conner, M. and Armitage, C.J. (1998) Extending the theory of planned behavior: a review and avenues for future research, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(15), pp. 14291464. Cook, J.M. and Wall, T. (1980) New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment, and personal need fulllment, Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53(1), pp. 3952. Cunningham, G.B. (2006) The relationships among commitment to change, coping with change, and turnover intentions, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15(1), pp. 2945. De Cremer, D. and van Knippenberg, D. (2002) How do leaders promote cooperation? The effects of charisma and procedural fairness, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), pp. 858866.

Charismatic Leadership and Employees Trust in Top Management

415

Detert, J.R. and Burris, E.R. (2007) Leadership behavior and employee voice: is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), pp. 869884. DiLalla, L.F., Tinsley, H.E. A. and Brown, S.D. (2000) Structural equation modeling: uses and issues, in: H.E.A. Tinsley and S.D. Brown (eds) Handbook of Applied Multivariate Statistics and Mathematical Modeling, pp. 439 464 (San Diego, CA: Academic Press). Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B.J. and Shamir, B. (2002) Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: a eld experiment, Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), pp. 735744. Fedor, D.B., Caldwell, S. and Herold, D.M. (2006) The effects of organizational changes on employee commitment: a multilevel investigation, Personnel Psychology, 59(1), pp. 129. Felfe, J. and Goihl, K. (2002) Transformational leadership and commitment, in: J. Felfe (ed.) Organizational Development and Leadership, pp. 87124 (Frankfurt a. M: Lang). Fiol, C.M., Harris, D. and House, R.J. (1999) Charismatic leadership: strategies for effecting social change, Leadership Quarterly, 10(3), pp. 449482. Fletcher, T.D., Selgrade, K.A. and Germano, L.M. (2006) On the use of partial covariances in structural equation modeling, in: 21st Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2006 (Dallas, TX). Gergen, K.J. (1969) The Psychology of Behavioral Exchange (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley). Gouldner, A.W. (1960) The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement, American Sociological Review, 25(2), pp. 161178. Hartwick, J. and Barki, H. (1994) Explaining the role of user participation in information system use, Management Science, 40(4), pp. 440465. Harvey, S., Kelloway, E.K. and Duncan-Leiper, L. (2003) Trust in management as a buffer of the relationships between overload and strain, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8(4), pp. 306315. Herold, D.M., Fedor, D.B. and Caldwell, S.D. (2007) Beyond change management: a multilevel investigation of contextual and personal inuences on employees commitment to change, Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), pp. 942951. Herold, D.M., Fedor, D.B., Caldwell, S.D. and Yi, L. (2008) The effects of transformational and change leadership on employees commitment to a change: a multilevel study, Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), pp. 346357. Herscovitch, L. and Meyer, J.P. (2002) Commitment to organizational change: extension of a three-component model, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), pp. 474487. Holahan, P.J., Aronson, Z.H., Jurkat, M.P. and Schoorman, F.D. (2004) Implementing computer technology: a multiorganizational test of Klein and Sorras model, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 21(1 2), pp. 3150. Homans, G.C. (1961) Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms (New York, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich) House, R.J. and Aditya, R.N. (1997) The social scientic study of leadership: quo vadis?, Journal of Management, 23(3), pp. 409473. House, R.J. and Mitchell, T.R. (1974) Path-goal theory of leadership, Journal of Contemporary Business, 3(4), pp. 8197. House, R.J., Spangler, W.D. and Woycke, J. (1991) Personality and charisma in the US presidency: a psychological theory of leader effectiveness, Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3), pp. 364396. Jaussi, K.S. and Dionne, S.D. (2003) Leading for creativity: the role of unconventional leader behavior, Leadership Quarterly, 14(4), pp. 475498. Jimmieson, N.L., Peach, M. and White, K.M. (2008) Utilizing the theory of planned behavior to inform change management: an investigation of employee intentions to support organizational change, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44(2), pp. 237262. Jung, D.I. (2001) Transformational and transactional leadership and their effects on creativity in groups, Creativity Research Journal, 13(2), pp. 185195. Jung, D.I., Chow, C. and Wu, A. (2003) The role of transformational leadership in enhancing organizational innovation: hypotheses and some preliminary ndings, Leadership Quarterly, 14(4), pp. 525544. Kiefer, T. (2005) Feeling bad: antecedents and consequences of negative emotions in ongoing change, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(8), pp. 875897. Klein, K.J., Conn, A.B. and Sorra, J.S. (2001) Implementing computerized technology: an organizational analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), pp. 811824. Klein, K.J. and Knight, A.P. (2005) Innovation implementation: overcoming the challenge, Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(5), pp. 243246.

416

B. Michaelis et al.

Klein, K.J. and Sorra, J.S. (1996) The challenge of innovation implementation, Academy of Management Review, 21(4), pp. 10551080. Kline, R.B. (1998) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (New York: Guilford Press). Korsgaard, M.A. and Roberson, L. (1995) Procedural justice in performance evaluation: the role of instrumental and noninstrumental voice in performance-appraisal discussions, Journal of Management, 21(4), pp. 657669. Korsgaard, M.A., Sapienza, H.J. and Schweiger, D.M. (2002) Beaten before begun: the role of procedural justice in planning change, Journal of Management, 28(4), pp. 497516. Krause, D.E. (2004) Inuence-based leadership as a determinant of the inclination to innovate and of innovationrelated behaviors: an empirical investigation, Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), pp. 79102. Leonard-Barton, D. (1988) Implementation characteristics of organizational innovations: limits and opportunities for management strategies, Communication Research, 15(5), pp. 603631. MacKinnon, D.P., Fairchild, A.J. and Fritz, M.S. (2007) Mediation analysis, Annual Review of Psychology, 58, pp. 593614. Marsh, H.W., Antill, J.K. and Cunningham, J.D. (1989) Masculinity and femininity: a bipolar construct and independent constructs, Journal of Personality, 57(3), pp. 625663. Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoormann, F.D. (2007) An integrative model of organizational trust: past, present, and future, Academy of Management Review, 32(2), pp. 344354. ch, V., Stegmaier, R. and Sonntag, K. (2008) A recipe for effective and non-stressful change: Michaelis, B., Bu the role of organizational support and fairness, in: The Seventh International Conference on Occupational Stress and Health, 2004 (Washington, DC). Mishra, A.K. (1996) Organizational responses to crisis: the centrality of trust, in: R.M. Kramer and T.R. Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, pp. 261287 (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications). Mulaik, S.A., James, L.R., Van Alstine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S. and Stilwell, C.D. (1989) Evaluation of goodness-of-t indices for structural equation models, Psychological Bulletin, 105(3), pp. 430445. Mumford, M.D. and Licuanan, B. (2004) Leading for innovation: conclusions, issues, and directions, Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), pp. 163171. Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986) Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects, Journal of Management, 12(4), pp. 531544. Reinke, S.J. (2003) Does the form really matter? Leadership, trust, and the acceptance of the performance appraisal process, Review of Public Personnel Administration, 23(1), pp. 2337. Repenning, N.P. and Sterman, J.D. (2002) Capability traps and self-conrming attribution errors in the dynamics of process improvement, Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(2), pp. 265295. Robie, C., Ryan, A.M., Schmieder, R.A., Parra, L.F. and Smith, P.C. (1998) The relation between job level and job satisfaction, Group & Organization Management, 23(4), pp. 470495. Robinson, S.L., Kraatz, M.S. and Rousseau, D.M. (1994) Changing obligations and the psychological contract: a longitudinal study, Academy of Management Journal, 37(1), pp. 137152. Seyranian, V. and Bligh, M.C. (2008) Presidential charismatic leadership: exploring the rhetoric of social change, Leadership Quarterly, 19(1), pp. 5476. Shamir, B., House, R.J. and Arthur, M.B. (1993) The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: a selfconcept based theory, Organization Science, 4(4), pp. 577594. Sharma, R. and Yetton, P. (2003) The contingent effects of management support and task interdependence on successful information systems implementation, MIS Quarterly, 27(4), pp. 533555. Shin, S.J. and Zhou, J. (2003) Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: evidence from Korea, Academy of Management Journal, 46(6), pp. 703714. Sitkin, S.B. and Roth, N.L. (1993) Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic remedies for trust/ distrust, Organization Science, 4(3), pp. 367392. Sutton, S. (1998) Predicting and explaining intentions and behavior: how well are we doing?, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(15), pp. 13171338. Tornatzky, L.G. and Klein, K.J. (1982) Innovation characteristics and innovation adoption-implementation: a meta-analysis of ndings, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 29(1), pp. 2845. Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R. and McKelvey, B. (2007) Complexity leadership theory: shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era, Leadership Quarterly, 18(4), pp. 298318. Waldman, D.A., Javidan, M. and Varella, P. (2004) Charismatic leadership at the strategic level: a new application of upper echelons theory, Leadership Quarterly, 15(3), pp. 355380.

Charismatic Leadership and Employees Trust in Top Management

417

Whitener, E., Brodt, S., Korsgaard, M.A. and Werner, J.M. (1998) Managers as initiators of trust: an exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behavior, Academy of Management Review, 23(3), pp. 513530. Yukl, G.A. (1999) An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories, The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), pp. 285305. Zhou, J. and George, J.M. (2003) Awakening employee creativity: the role of leader emotional intelligence, Leadership Quarterly, 14(4), pp. 545568.

Notes on Contributors

rn Michaelis received his PhD in Organizational Behavior at the University of Bjo Heidelberg, Germany. Currently, he is a Substitute Professor at the Department of Industrial and Organizational Psychology at the University of Heidelberg, Germany. His research focuses on how leadership and emotions promote or inhibit organizational change and innovation. Ralf Stegmaier received his PhD in Psychology at the University of Heidelberg, Germany. Currently, he is a Professor at the Department of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. His current research focuses on how procedural fairness and leadership affects organizational change and innovation processes. Karlheinz Sonntag earned his PhD degree at the University of Munich, Germany; he is a full professor of Industrial and Organizational Psychology at the University of Heidelberg, Germany. His current research interests include human resource development, workplace learning, change and innovation management, occupational health, and aging workforce.

Copyright of Journal of Change Management is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.