Past experience of pseudo-transformational leadership, perception of the current manager's transformational leadership and trust in current manager Open Access

In the 21st century, the world of work has changed dramatically compared to the previous century. One significant change relates to the employees themselves, who increasingly prefer to adopt boundaryless career patterns and exhibit job-hopping behaviors as they transition from one workplace to another (Arthur et al., 2005; Steenackers and Guerry, 2016). These trends have been linked to personal prioritization of self-driven goals, independent of organizational affiliations, as well as generational differences (Arthur et al., 2005; Steenackers and Guerry, 2016). Yet, the underlying assumption that “starting new” equates to “starting fresh” has not been thoroughly explored with reference to leader-subordinate relationships, particularly regarding the long-term psychological and professional effects of previous leadership experiences.

Pseudo-transformational leadership is defined as “self-serving, yet highly inspirational leadership behaviors, unwillingness to encourage independent thought in subordinates, and little caring for one's subordinates more generally” (Christie et al., 2011, p. 2943). The scholarship on pseudo-transformational leadership is scarce. A search in the Web of Science database at the beginning of 2025 for “pseudo-transformational leadership” in title, abstract, and topic fields returned only 17 studies. Most earlier studies focused on quantifying and understanding pseudo-transformational leadership and its immediate effects or precursors (e.g. Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999; Barling et al., 2008; Christie et al., 2011; Schuh et al., 2013; Syed et al., 2021; Lin et al., 2017). One of the central operative mechanisms responsible for the damaging consequences of pseudo-transformational leadership on organizational performance is the erosion of trust in the current (pseudo-transformational) leader, which was reported in previous experimental and field survey works (Christie et al., 2011; Tian et al., 2023). No studies, however, have investigated the long-term effects of exposure to pseudo-transformational leadership, specifically the ability to place trust in future managers.

This study focuses on how past experiences of pseudo-transformational leadership affect perceptions of current managers' transformational leadership and their level of trust in them. Transformational leadership is defined as “a style of leadership that transforms followers to rise above their self-interest by altering their morale, ideals, interests, and values, motivating them to perform better than initially expected” (Pieterse et al., 2010, p. 610), and trust is defined as “an expectation or belief that one can rely on another person's actions and words and that the person has good intentions to carry out their promises” (Bligh, 2017, p. 21). The study also investigates how the perception of the current manager's transformational leadership mediates the damaging effects of past pseudo-transformational leadership on trust (Figure 1). The decision to treat trust in the current manager as the dependent variable, rather than perception of the current manager's transformational leadership, stems from how trust functions in leadership relationships. Trust plays “a critical role as a key mechanism through which the positive impact of leadership can be elicited” (Legood et al., 2021, p. 1). Perceptions of the current manager's transformational leadership, in contrast, are part of the process, they are shaped by both the current manager's behavior and past leadership experiences.

The rationale for this research is rooted in the socio-cognitive approach that assumes that humans see reality only as a reflection of their internal representations (Ringberg and Reihlen, 2008). The model originates from Klaussner's (2012) multifaceted static perspective of leadership centered on followers' expectations and the way they influence interpersonal trust. Klaussner pointed out three aspects of the categorization of leaders' behavior: implicit leadership theories, previous experiences, and organizational context. This study focuses on the first two.

While research has focused on pseudo-transformational leadership short-term effects, investigating its long-term consequences is crucial. This study can deepen our understanding of leadership dynamics and long-term organizational health. It can reveal patterns and relationships not immediately visible, enriching the literature on leadership styles. This knowledge is vital for leaders, HR professionals, and policymakers aiming to enhance organizational resilience and sustainability.

Transformational leadership, together with its closely related sibling, charismatic leadership, is the most explored construct in leadership research today (Dinh et al., 2014). Burns (1978) and Bass (1985) formulated the concept of transformational leadership, which they define as a meaningful and creative dialog between leaders and followers that aims to inspire a change in followers' behavior based on a shared vision. Transformational leaders inspire their followers to go above and beyond what is expected of them and to place the interests of the group or organization above their own (Bass and Riggio, 2006). Transformational leadership consists of four sub-dimensions: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. Through the emotional effect of the charismatic leader, idealized influence elicits role modeling behavior, identification with the leader, and internalization of the leader's vision, values, and missions (Bass and Riggio, 2006). Motivating behaviors that lend significance to followers' duties are part of inspirational motivation. Leaders' conduct also inspires followers through symbolic deeds (Bass and Riggio, 2006). Intellectual stimulation includes actions that energize audiences by presenting issues differently, encouraging them to devise original and creative solutions, and taking fresh approaches in familiar circumstances (Bass and Riggio, 2006). Individualized consideration involves the actions of the leader, such as fostering a supportive environment and creating fresh learning opportunities (e.g. coaching; Bass et al., 2003). Transformational leadership has been repeatedly associated with positive desired outcomes such as higher performance, engagement, satisfaction, and commitment, and lower turnover (Siangchokyoo et al., 2020).

The ethics of charismatic and transformational leadership, terms that are frequently used synonymously in the literature, have been the subject of heated debate (e.g. Berkovich and Eyal, 2021; Christie et al., 2011; Conger, 1990; Howell and Avolio, 1992; Price, 2003), possibly because of the potential for opportunistic behavior that these leaders' persuasive appeal inspires. The actions of genuine transformational leaders (or socialized charismatic leaders) can be distinguished from those of pseudo-transformational leaders (or personalized charismatic leaders) (e.g. Barling et al., 2008; Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999; Brown and Trevino, 2006; Howell, 1988; Popper, 2002; Watts et al., 2018). Although motivating and swaying people is neither inherently moral nor immoral, real transformational leaders motivate and sway others to empower them (Christie et al., 2011; Howell and Avolio, 1992). A meta-analysis comparing several forms of positive leadership that emphasize ethical and moral behavior found high correlations between authentic and ethical leadership on one hand and transformational leadership on the other, as well as low incremental variance over transformational leadership (Hoch et al., 2018), suggesting that transformational leadership inherently encompasses authentic and ethical aspects as well. Pseudo-transformational leaders, by contrast, motivate others and leverage their power for personal advantage (Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999; Christie et al., 2011; Lin et al., 2017; Syed et al., 2021). Thus, authentic transformational leadership stands in opposition to leadership that abuses authority by prioritizing self-interest over those of followers.

The literature directly addressing pseudo-transformational leadership is limited (all of 17 studies in the Web of Science database), but it can be regarded as relating to a broad discussion on unethical and destructive leaders (Almeida et al., 2022; Krasikova et al., 2013). In leadership research, Conger and Kanungo (1998) first referred to unethical charismatic leaders. Next, Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) separated pseudo-transformational leaders from real ones. Pseudo-transformational leaders, as defined by Bass and Steidlmeier, fall short of the moral standard necessary for transformational leadership because their actions are not driven by ethical ideals. Price (2003) argued that leaders can be pseudo-transformational as a result of unethical beliefs, unethical actions, or both. To conceptualize pseudo-transformational leadership more widely, Dasborough and Ashkanasy (2002) examined the connection between the leader and followers. The authors focused their attention on how followers' perceptions of their leaders' motivations are influenced by their feelings and attributions about those motivations. They hypothesized that when followers view their leaders as pseudo-transformational, the leader-follower connection suffers. Two of the four transformational leadership behaviors, idealized influence and inspirational motivation, were included in the pseudo-transformational leadership model developed and tested by Barling et al. (2008). They discovered that, in comparison to followers of transformational and laissez-faire leaders, followers of pseudo-transformational leaders regarded these leaders to be more abusive; they were more dependent on the leader, obedient to them, afraid of them, and experienced higher degrees of job insecurity. Lin et al. (2017) focused on the manipulative intention of transformational leadership as a proxy of pseudo-transformational leadership and explored its harm to identification with the organization and extra-role activities. Schuh et al.'s (2013) study of 114 leader-follower dyads explored transformational leaders' moral vs authoritarian behaviors and found them to be related to subordinates' in-role and extra-role efforts. A multi-wave study by Syed et al. (2021) of 277 employees found pseudo-transformational leadership to be associated with contemptuous behavior by the leader and employee responses of interaction avoidance and indirect aggression.

The leadership literature has suggested that implicit leadership theories and previous experiences affect individuals' expectations (Alipour et al., 2017; Klaussner, 2012; Lord et al., 2020; Offermann et al., 1994). Implicit leadership theories are cognitive schemas that influence how each person expects to engage with leaders (Alabdulhadi et al., 2017; Lord et al., 2020). Such schemas provide followers with the ability to analyze perceived leadership behavior and evaluate it by comparison to ideal and general notions (Klaussner, 2012). Unconsciously, followers rely on implicit leadership theories to direct their sense-making regarding how they perceive and respond to the behavior of their leader (Lord et al., 2020). Implicit leadership theories are said to develop during adolescence and are considered stable and resistant to change (Klaussner, 2012). The idea was first presented by Eden and Leviatan (1975) as a systematic measurement mistake in leader behavior. By creating and empirically testing a theory of leadership categorization, Lord and colleagues (Lord et al., 1982; Lord et al., 1984) improved upon that notion. Thus, even when a leader and follower have never met, a follower may already hold specific expectations about the leader's behavior (Klaussner, 2012). In this way, implicit leadership theories reduce ambiguity and promote social interaction between leaders and followers by guiding followers' expectations. According to the literature, cognitive schemas of implicit leadership theories are linked to interpersonal outcomes like trust, the quality of leader-member exchanges, and work attitudes such as job satisfaction (Martin and Epitropaki, 2001; Epitropaki and Martin, 2005).

According to Klaussner (2012), previous personal experiences that actors have gained through prior contact with other leaders are closely tied to implicit leadership theories. Ritter and Lord (2007) argued that implicit leadership theories and prior experiences operate together as people perceive and assess the behavior of their interaction partners. Previous personal experiences with a past leader that affect the evaluation of a current leader are related to leader transference, which is defined as the application of a mental framework created in a previous relationship to automatically guide cognitive and emotional processes in a new relationship (Ritter and Lord, 2007). The psychological literature on leader transference is based mostly on transference dynamics in romantic and doctor-patient relationships (Klaussner, 2012). In addition to the internalized prototypes depicted by implicit leadership theories, follower perceptions and responses are influenced to some degree by memories and experiences with a particular leader because expectations of leaders' treatment and behavior are easily transferred (Ritter and Lord, 2007). The authors argued that theoretically, transference procedures may become self-fulfilling prophecies. For example, a follower who anticipates abusive behavior because of transference processes is expected to act defensively, unhelpfully, and vengefully, which may trigger the very leader behavior the follower sought to avoid (Bies, 1987; Bies and Tripp, 1998). Research on transference processes has shown that past individual experiences with various leaders have some bearing on expectations about actual leadership behavior and engagement (Gruda and Kafetsios, 2020). These works attest to the critical role of past relational patterns in shaping perceptions and interactions in current leader-follower dynamics.

Additional support for the influence of past relationships on current ones can be found in the developmental research about parent-child relationships. Somewhat resembling the core idea of implicit leadership theories, Collins and Read (1990) claimed that children develop their own “working models” with expectations about parents' caring behaviors, and their empirical work found a link between adult attachment with romantic partners and their childhood working models. Overbeek et al. (2007) found that low-quality parent-child relationships were indirectly related to lower quality of the children's relationships as adults with their partners. Several works suggested that transformational leadership correlated positively with the secure attachment style formed in childhood (Mayseless and Popper, 2019; Popper et al., 2000). Together, this body of research demonstrates the profound influence of early relational schemas on subsequent interpersonal behavior. Thus, I propose:

Most theories of work relationships consider trust to be a crucial component of effective interactions (Fulmer and Gelfand, 2012). Multidimensional operationalization of trust discriminates between several trust bases. The most common types of trust are cognitive and affective (McAllister, 1995). Cognitive trust is the process of making logical judgments about the competence and dependability of other persons based on their similarities to oneself, their professional background, and the results of previous contacts. Affective trust, by contrast, relates to the emotional links in a relationship and is influenced by impressions of the other party's intentions, the level of assistance and support they offer, and the frequency of engagement. Because it promotes duty and lessens ambiguity about reciprocation, trust is essential for the growth and development of beneficial social interactions (Konovsky and Pugh, 1994). Typically, managers have the power to make choices that significantly affect how well their team members can accomplish their objectives (Burke et al., 2007). As a result, workers are more likely to establish a bond of trust with managers who are perceived as looking out for workers' interests. Individuals who have faith in their leaders' good intentions or actions are said to be in a position of trust because they are willing to accept their frailty (Rousseau et al., 1998).

The facilitation of social exchanges through trust has emerged as a key factor in positive leadership philosophies. Transformational leadership has been the type of leadership most closely related to trust (Jung and Avolio, 2000). The ability of transformational leaders to arouse pride, admiration, and respect in their followers, as well as their skill at using social cues to make them feel valued and appreciated, are key components of the ability of transformational leadership to increase trust (Ng, 2017). According to Mayer et al. (1995), trust is a well-established relationship factor that influences risk-taking. When followers trust their leader, they are far more likely to take risks and exert the necessary effort to realize the leader's vision. Transformational leaders are persuasive role models who demonstrate integrity (a characteristic of cognitive trust) by being prepared to make sacrifices for others and by being consistent in their speech and deeds (Legood et al., 2021). Showing special concern for employees may convey to them that their leaders are benevolent (a quality that defines affective trust) and would act in their best interests, fostering trust (Legood et al., 2021). Thus, I hypothesize:

There is limited research on pseudo-transformational leadership and trust. Tian et al. (2023) argued that a key mechanism responsible for the destructive effects of pseudo-transformational leadership is the erosion of trust. Christie et al. (2011) conducted three lab studies with university students who were asked to judge pseudo-transformational leadership in vignettes, scenarios, and movies and found a negative link between this style and trust. Research using a field survey study of 292 employees found that pseudo-transformational leaders were viewed as less trustworthy and evoked low levels of subordinates' trust, which was likely to lead followers to be less inclined to accept their influence and share sensitive information, ultimately harming team and organizational functioning and performance (Tian et al., 2023). One can also infer on the relationship between pseudo-transformational leadership and trust partly from research on ethical leadership. Using a sample of 294 matched leader-employee dyads, Kalshoven et al. (2011) showed that workers' opinions of ethical leadership greatly influence the employees' trust in their leaders. Therefore, leaders who are frequently seen as genuine role models for acceptable behavior in their companies may enjoy greater levels of trust from their subordinates than do those who are not. Based on a sample of 87 MBA students, Brown et al. (2005) discovered that ethical leadership was positively related to workers' affective trust. Thus, I suggest:

This study was based on a cross-sectional survey of Israeli workers using an Israeli valid online recruitment platform for research. This recruitment platform has been used for other studies in management and leadership research (Chernyak-Hai et al., 2024; SimanTov-Nachlieli and Bamberger, 2021). Online surveys provide broad access to participants across demographics and in various geographic locations. The study received the approval of an institutional review board. A sample size estimation was conducted to determine the required number of participants needed to detect a significant correlation. The sample size calculation was based on an estimated correlation of 0.27, which was derived from the findings of Baek et al. (2023) on the associations between past and current work relationships. For a medium correlation (r = 0.27), with a significance level of α = 0.05 and a power of 1−β = 0.95, the required sample size is N = 138. In total, 507 participants answered the survey (50.5% female), and all questions were compulsory. The mean age of the participants was 40.13 years (SD = 10.03); 37.5% had a bachelor's degree, 13.8% a master's degree (or higher), and the rest had no academic education; 51.1% were secular, 23.7% somewhat religious, and the rest were religious and highly religious. The respondents resided across the country: 49.5% were located in the center of the country, 10.1% in the capital, 20.9% in the north, 14.4% in the south, and the rest in various areas. A quarter of the respondents (25%) were employed in business-related positions, 19% in service, 17% in education, 15% in government, 13% in manufacturing, 6% in retail, and the rest in other occupations. The distributions of gender and religious affiliations were similar to the presentation of those factors in the general population distribution in Israel (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2023), supporting the claim that the sample was not biased. The varying levels of education suggest that the sample reflected both the diverse perspectives of highly educated individuals and those without academic education.

Pseudo-transformational leader. Pseudo-transformational leadership measurement is not yet established and is exploratory. However, it is often assessed through measures of idealized influence and attributed charisma of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) (Bass and Avolio, 1994) (e.g. Barling et al., 2008; Syed et al., 2021). Although empirical research on pseudo-transformational leadership is limited, studies often use vignettes and scenarios to represent the archetypal pseudo-transformational leader, using the MLQ to assess the extent of pseudo-transformational leadership through other-reports (e.g. Barling et al., 2008; Lin et al., 2017; Tian et al., 2023). Yet, most methodologies relying on moderation analysis (e.g. Barling et al., 2008; Lin et al., 2017) and profile analysis (e.g. Tian et al. (2023), which mixed MLQ dimensions with leader self-interest) preclude mediation analysis. To address these limitations, I propose an adjustment where instructions provided to respondents predispose them towards selecting charismatic leaders, focusing solely on assessing the idealized influence component. I incorporated the following introduction before the statements: “Please recall a charismatic person in a management position in a setting that you were part of (work, military, or education) and were disappointed by certain negative aspects of that person's behavior. Now please, indicate the extent to which the following statements describe that person's characteristics.” The study adapted the idealized influence behaviors scale (4 items) of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) (Bass and Avolio, 1994) to capture the past experience of (un)ethical conduct of a pseudo-transformational leader: “This leader did not consider the moral and ethical consequences of his/her decisions”, “This leader did not talk about important values and beliefs”, “This leader did not specify the importance of having a strong sense of moral purpose”, “This leader did not emphasize the importance of having a collective sense of mission”. As this was a retrospective report of past experience, therefore frequency ranking was less accurate. I asked respondents to report their level of agreement with the items on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). 28.2% of the participants had worked with the past manager for a year or less, 28.6% for more than one year and less than 2 years, 26.8% for 2–5 years, and the rest for over 5 years. Given that the items were pre-established and the rephrasing involved only negation transformation and minor changes (i.e. omitting or adding a word) without altering their underlying meaning or scope, it was not necessary to reevaluate their face or content validity. The factorial analysis performed demonstrated the construct validity of the questionnaire. The sample was split into two sub-samples to explore construct validity. Sample A (n = 250) was investigated using exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The results indicated a single factor in which all items loaded above 0.70 with a mean factor loading of 0.79, explaining 63.76% of the variance. Sample B (n = 257) was used for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and the results indicated that all items had standardized factor load values above 0.50. The fit indices suggested a good fit (GFI: Goodness of Fit Index = 0.96, CFI: Comparative Fit Index = 0.95) (see Hu and Bentler, 1999). Cronbach's alpha = 0.80. It has been shown that reliability values over 0.70 for Cronbach's alpha indicate an acceptable level of reliability for the measuring instrument (Tavakol and Dennick, 2011).

Perceptions of transformational leadership. To evaluate employees' perceptions of their current managers' leadership, I used the Short Transformational Leadership scale by Carless et al. (2000). The scale contains seven items, for example, “My manager communicated a clear and positive vision of the future.” Participants rated each statement on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (very frequently). Cronbach's alpha = 0.93.

Trust in the manager. I used the McAllister (1995) Interpersonal Trust Scale to test the two aspects of trust in the manager: cognitive and affective. Examples of scale items include “My manager approaches his/her job with professionalism and dedication” (cognitive trust, 6 items), and “If I shared my problems with my manager, I know he/she would respond constructively and caringly” (affective trust, 5 items). Participants were asked to rate each statement on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). Internal reliabilities of the cognitive trust and affective trust dimensions were high: 0.82 and 0.91, respectively.

Controls. I included the subordinates' age and gender as well as the length of time working with the current manager because it has been proposed that these factors affect how social interactions are seen and understood, particularly in circumstances of vulnerability (Antonucci, 2001).

First, I used the single-factor test developed by Harman to find the common method variance (CMV). All survey items were subjected to a single exploratory factor analysis. The first component explained 26.68% of the variance, significantly below the 50% threshold of problematic CMV noted in the literature (Podsakoff et al., 2003), confirming that CMV posed no problem in the data. Second, descriptive statistics were computed. The descriptive statistics and correlations between the study variables are presented in Table 1. The low mean of past experiences with a pseudo-transformational leader indicates that participants' encounters with classic pseudo-transformational leaders were relatively uncommon. Participants' responses, however, indicate that their current manager was characterized by transformational leadership to an average extent. Levels of cognitive trust and affective trust in the current manager were also average, with cognitive trust being slightly higher. Hypotheses 1 and 2 were supported based on the correlation analysis. H1, which stated that past experience with pseudo-transformational leadership is negatively related to the perception of the current manager's transformational leadership, was supported by a significant negative correlation between the two variables. H2 was also supported, showing significant positive correlations between the perception of the current manager's transformational leadership and both cognitive and affective trust in the current manager. The correlations of subordinates' age and gender with the variables of interest did not produce significant correlations. By contrast, the duration of work with the current leader appears to affect trust in leader attitudes, specifically affective trust; therefore, I included only this control in the mediation analysis.

The study aimed to investigate the direct and indirect mediated effects of past experience with a pseudo-transformational leader on trust in leader attitudes based on the perception of current manager's transformational leadership. Contemporary mediation approaches favor a single-step strategy that also directly analyzes the indirect influence (Preacher and Hayes, 2004, 2008), as opposed to the multiple-step methodology of the classic mediation exploration approach (Baron and Kenny, 1986). Therefore, I used Hayes's (2013) SPSS PROCESS method (Model 4), which tests mediation with the bootstrapping technique (n = 1000), to conduct two single-step tests of the indirect mediated effects: one for cognitive and one for affective trust type. I used experience with a pseudo-transformational leader as the independent variable, and entered the perception of the current manager's transformational leadership ranking as a mediator, cognitive or affective trust in the leader as a dependent variable, and duration of work with the current manager as a covariate for the mediator and the result variable. The mediation effect of the current managers' transformational leadership on the relationship between a past experience of pseudo-transformational leadership and affective trust in the current manager was not statistically significant, indicating that transformational leadership did not substantially influence the development of affective trust in this chain of effects. The mediation hypothesis was confirmed only for cognitive trust in the leader (Table 2 and Figure 2), suggesting that the effect of past experience with a pseudo-transformational leader on cognitive trust in the leader was mediated by the perception of the current manager's transformational leadership (0.07, 95% CI = [−0.0038, −0.1517]). The direct effect of past experience with a pseudo-transformational leader on cognitive trust in the leader was significant (B = −0.0910, p = 0.0012). Therefore, the study revealed a partial mediation effect. H3a and H3b were only partially supported, as the relationship was observed for cognitive trust only. Meaning that past experience with pseudo-transformational leadership negatively affected cognitive trust in the current manager, and this effect was mediated by the perception of the current manager's transformational leadership.

The present research examined the effect of past pseudo-transformational leadership on the perception of the current manager's transformational leadership and trust in the current manager. To achieve this objective, I proposed that past pseudo-transformational leadership is not linked with lower trust in the current leader, but the perception of the current manager's transformational leadership mediates the aversive effect of past pseudo-transformational leadership on trust. The results partly confirm the mediation model. The findings indicate that the perception of the current manager's transformational leadership significantly mediated the relationship between pseudo-transformational leadership and cognitive trust, but not affective trust in the current manager. The results of the study support Klaussner's (2012) multifaceted static perspective on leadership centered on followers' expectations. The significance of this study lies in its emphasis on highlighting the suboptimal effects of negative leadership in the workplace. A survey by the Workforce Institute at UKG of 3,400 people across 10 countries found that in the case of about 70% of people, their bosses' influence on their mental health equals that of their partner, and it is greater than that of their therapist (UKG, 2023). This finding attests to the pressing need to understand and address the effects, especially long-term, of negative leadership forms, such as pseudo-transformational leadership, on employees. The study promotes an understanding of leadership as a temporally situated phenomenon. Shamir (2011) argued that leadership research should take time-related aspects more seriously. In this line of thought, there is a sequential interconnectivity of phenomena across the past, present, and future, and an understanding of current occurrences through the lens of their historical context or projected future (Shamir, 2011). Yet, Shamir (2011) ignores broader work history and focuses only on the relational history of a given leader. Thus, the present work expands the theoretical debate about time in leadership by suggesting that individuals are not a clean slate, and that prior relational history can be associated with current relationships.

The present work makes several contributions to the research field of pseudo-transformational leadership. First, ‏it expands the limited knowledge base on pseudo-transformational leadership. Most previous research focused on measuring and comprehending pseudo-transformational leadership and its proximal impacts (e.g. Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999; Barling et al., 2008; Christie et al., 2011; Schuh et al., 2013; Syed et al., 2021) or its antecedents (e.g. Lin et al., 2017) but paid no attention to the effects of exposure to pseudo-transformational leadership in the long term. The findings indicate that past exposure to pseudo-transformational leadership on the perception of the current manager's transformational leadership reduces the likelihood of the perception of present leadership as transformational. The work connects pseudo-transformational leadership with research on implicit leadership theories, showing how past experiences with leaders affect leadership prototypes (Alipour et al., 2017; Klaussner, 2012; Lord et al., 2020; Offermann et al., 1994). But whereas an earlier study showed the stability of implicit leadership theories regardless of whether the manager remained the same or changed (Epitropaki and Martin, 2004), the present work indirectly shows that implicit leadership theories are dynamic, and that changes in them are associated with perceptions of past experiences. Thus, while “manager change per se is not a sufficient enough condition for ILTs [implicit leadership theories] to change” (Epitropaki and Martin, 2004, p. 307), the manager's pseudo-transformational conduct appears to be associated with this change. The present study fills a research need on the dynamic of leadership attribution (Martinko et al., 2007, 2011) and offers new knowledge on the role that past leadership experiences play in it.

Second, the present study expanded the understanding of the connection between pseudo-transformational leadership and multiple dimensions of trust. Existing works explored only the link between style and trust as a global concept (Christie et al., 2011; Tian et al., 2023), without disentangling the two types of trust: affective and cognitive. The research on pseudo-transformational leadership suggested that pseudo-transformational leaders are manipulative, driven by self-interest, and untrustworthy (Lin et al., 2017). This formed the basis for the study's assumption about why past pseudo-transformational leadership affects the prototype of managers in a manner that harms trust in them. It is known that positive leadership forms (e.g. ethical and servant leadership) have a greater ability to foster affective trust (Legood et al., 2021), and that negative leadership forms (e.g. abusive supervision) are slightly more likely not to foster cognitive trust (Samian et al., 2021). Although pseudo-transformational leadership research has argued and shown that this leadership type may be more closely related to followers' affective aspects (e.g. Dasborough and Ashkanasy, 2002; Lin et al., 2017; Syed et al., 2021), the present research found direct and indirect effects of past pseudo-transformational leadership on cognitive trust in the current manager. There is a rationale for the connection between pseudo-transformational leadership and low cognitive trust in the manager. Legood et al. (2021) argued that “[t]ransformational leaders are persuasive role models who signal integrity (a defining feature of cognitive trust)” (p. 3); therefore, pseudo-transformational leadership may signal the opposite. Cognitive trust has been associated with antecedents like procedural justice (Dirks and Ferrin, 2002), pointing to the part that fair conduct plays in cognitive trust in the manager. This association may be explained by the fact that when subordinates are exposed to pseudo-transformational leadership, they are more likely to change their implicit leadership theories of leader prototype, causing them to interpret transformational leadership actions negatively, as unskilled and unreliable. Legood et al. (2021) suggested that characteristics of cognitive trust, such as the competence and reliability of one's team members, may be of higher significance in less hierarchical work settings, where team members may work more collaboratively. Thus, our finding may be amplified as a result of the national context in which that study was conducted, which is characterized by relatively low power distance (Hofstede, 2004). The surprising lack of connection between past experiences with pseudo-transformational leadership and affective trust in the current manager suggests that affective trust may be more resilient to negative past leadership experiences than cognitive trust. It is possible that the emotional and relational aspects of affective trust are less influenced by past leadership and more dependent on current interpersonal dynamics. Social Exchange Theory (Cropanzano et al., 2017) supports this notion, as it emphasizes that affective trust is built through ongoing interactions and mutual support, rather than being easily disrupted by previous experiences.

Given the significant effect of past experiences with pseudo-transformational leadership, organizations should take proactive steps to resolve these issues, given the fact that previous experiences with pseudo-transformational leadership greatly affect how future transformational leadership and leader-follower relationships are seen. First, management education programs can emphasize ethical values and help aspiring leaders develop self-awareness of their moral reasoning, leadership behaviors, and their impact (Groves and LaRocca, 2011). Second, organizations can provide organizing reflections that enable staff members to consider their previous work experiences in a constructive setting (Vince and Reynolds, 2009). Such programs, commonly used to help staff critically process work experiences, have implications for employees' future decisions, activities, and emotions (Vince and Reynolds, 2009). Following these programs, employees may adjust their implicit leadership schemas and foster more positive interactions with their current leaders. Third, human resource practitioners should implement measures like anonymous feedback systems or 360-degree assessments to identify pseudo-transformational leadership expressions early (Tian et al., 2023). Such tools may be especially valuable following a leadership transition. These measures can assist in spotting the individuals involved in these actions and intervening to reduce their harmful effects before they cause lasting harm to staff trust and morale (Tian et al., 2023). Leadership development programs could include components on ethical self-awareness and authenticity, ensuring that aspiring leaders not only master transformational behaviors but also embrace integrity and transparency as guiding principles. Last, in the public sector, where rebuilding trust in leadership is often more critical than in other sectors (see Institute of Leadership, 2018), these findings highlight the importance of the organizational monitoring and repair mechanisms mentioned above during leadership transitions.

This study has several shortcomings. First, it used a cross-sectional design. Replication is advised with a longitudinal study design. Second, the current study was based on an Israeli sample. More research is required to determine whether the results of the study can be applied to other cultural contexts. The cultural socialization of the followers about whether certain actions and traits (such as aspiration, self-sacrifice, and honesty) are understood as crucial components of excellent leaders (Epitropaki and Martin, 2004; Lord et al., 2020) may affect the outcomes of the study. Third, the study did not account for the role of followers' attitudes and beliefs as possible moderators of the influence of past pseudo-transformational leadership. For example, Syed et al. (2021) found that the effect of pseudo-transformational leadership was enhanced in individuals with higher epistemic motivation (i.e. deep information processing). Thus, the study should be expanded in the future to examine the role of additional followers' attitudes and beliefs on the model presented here. Fourth, the questionnaire used to evaluate pseudo-transformational leadership did not explore the detrimental aspects linked with deception, as noted in some of the literature on the concept. Future work might consider developing additional measures that capture all dimensions of the concept. Fifth, the study did not take into account organizational context variables, such as industry type or organizational culture, which may influence the relationship between past leadership experiences and perceptions of current leadership. Future research could explore these contextual factors. Lastly, future studies might also examine potential mediators, such as resilience, that could help buffer the lingering negative effects of pseudo-transformational leadership on how current leaders are perceived.