Top List List

Paternalistic leadership A level business

[Please check your downloads folder shortly for your download]

If you have a problem obtaining your download, click here to go back to the article page.
Or contact our support team who will be happy to help.

Please supply the following details:

Request ID: 6e847392ed5b89a7
IP: 168.138.169.239
UTC time: 2022-03-07T15:44:15.848Z

//jom.sagepub.com

Journal of Management

DOI: 10.1177/0149206308316063

2008; 34; 566 Journal of Management

Ekin K. Pellegrini and Terri A. Scandura Paternalistic Leadership: A Review and Agenda for Future Research

//jom.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/34/3/566

The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

//www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Southern Management Association

can be found at:Journal of Management Additional services and information for

//jom.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

//jom.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

//www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

//www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

//jom.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/34/3/566

SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms]:

[this article cites 44 articles hosted on the Citations

at UNIV OF MIAMI on May 24, 2008 //jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Paternalistic Leadership: A Review and Agenda

for Future Research†

Ekin K. Pellegrini*

University of Missouri–St. Louis, College of Business Administration, Department of Management,

St. Louis, MO 63121

Terri A. Scandura

University of Miami, School of Business Administration, Department of Management,

Coral Gables, FL 33124

The growing interest in paternalistic leadership research has led to a recent proliferation of

diverse definitions and perspectives, as well as a limited number of empirical studies.

Consequently, the diversity of perspectives has resulted in conceptual ambiguities, as well as

contradictory empirical findings. In this article, the authors review research on paternalistic

leadership in an effort to assess the current state of the literature. They investigate the construct

of paternalistic leadership and review the findings related to its outcomes and antecedents as

well as the various measurement scales used in paternalistic leadership research. On the basis

of this review, the article concludes with an agenda for future theoretical and empirical research

on this emerging and intriguing new area for leadership research.

Keywords: cross-cultural; leadership; paternalism; paternalistic leadership

International leadership research is at a major crossroads [Graen, 2006]. The quest to define

effective leadership has long been an important topic of discussion [House, Hanges, Javidan,

Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004], but when these discussions drift into different cultural contexts, our

current knowledge and insights appear rather limited [Drost & Von Glinow, 1998]. One such

area in leadership research is paternalistic leadership. Paternalistic leadership is a flourishing

566

†The authors would like to thank Russell Cropanzano and Tom Wright for their comments on earlier versions of this article.

*Corresponding author: Tel.: 314-516-4528; fax: 314-516-6420

E-mail address:

Journal of Management, Vol. 34 No. 3, June 2008 566-593

DOI: 10.1177/0149206308316063

at UNIV OF MIAMI on May 24, 2008 //jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

research area in management literature, but there is still considerable disparity among authors

with respect to the definition and effectiveness of paternalistic practices.

More than eight decades ago, the human relations movement suggested that if managers

focused on employees rather than on mechanistic production, workers would be more satis-

fied and more productive. These early behavioral management theorists believed that man-

agers should be paternalistic and nurturing to build work groups that are productive and

satisfied [Follett, 1933; Munsterberg, 1913]. On the other hand, at roughly the same time,

Max Weber [1947] argued that paternalistic practices would become obsolete as organiza-

tions became more bureaucratic and relied on rules and the protection of individual rights.

He suggested within a paternalistic system, obedience is owed to the leader only by virtue

of his or her status, and he described paternalism as one of the most elementary types of tra-

ditional domination. He further argued that the rational-legal model of bureaucracy would

replace traditional forms of control such as paternalism and that the shift from paternalism-

based traditional organizations to rational-legal organizations would produce better perfor-

mance [Weber, 1968].

Studies on paternalism emerging from Asia opposed Weber’s purely authoritarian view

and argued that paternalistic managers provide support, protection, and care to their subor-

dinates [Redding, Norman, & Schlander, 1994]. Westwood and Chan [1992] defined pater-

nalism as a fatherlike leadership style in which strong authority is combined with concern

and considerateness. More recent research from India, Turkey, China, and Pakistan also sug-

gests that paternalism does not connote “authoritarianism” but rather a relationship in which

subordinates willingly reciprocate the care and protection of paternal authority by showing

conformity [Aycan et al., 2000; Pellegrini & Scandura, 2006]. Recently, Pearce [2005]

claimed that paternalism is never completely removed from even the most rational-legal

organizations and that the benevolent aspect in paternalism may be underappreciated in the

Western literature.

Despite diverse descriptions offered by different authors across time and cultures, more

recent research typically defines paternalistic leadership as “a style that combines strong dis-

cipline and authority with fatherly benevolence” [Farh & Cheng, 2000: 91]. Authoritarianism

refers to leader behaviors that assert authority and control, whereas benevolence refers to an

individualized concern for subordinates’ personal well-being. This type of leadership is still

prevalent and effective in many business cultures, such as in the Middle East, Pacific Asia,

and Latin America [Farh, Cheng, Chou, & Chu, 2006; Martinez, 2003; Pellegrini & Scandura,

2006; Uhl-Bien, Tierney, Graen, & Wakabayashi, 1990]. However, it has increasingly been

perceived negatively in Western management literature, which is reflected in descriptions of

paternalism such as “benevolent dictatorship” [Northouse, 1997: 39] and “a hidden and insid-

ious form of discrimination” [Colella, Garcia, Reidel, & Triana, 2005: 26].

In this review, we attempt to integrate the diverse perspectives on paternalistic leadership

in an effort to assess the current state of the literature. An integrative research review is crit-

ical and timely given the existing perplexity in the management literature with regard to the

effectiveness of paternalistic leadership. Furthermore, despite the abundant theoretical work

in this area, there is still very little empirical research on paternalism. A growing body of lit-

erature on paternalistic leadership has emerged in the past two decades, but empirical

research has lagged behind.

Pellegrini, Scandura / Paternalistic Leadership 567

at UNIV OF MIAMI on May 24, 2008 //jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

There is a significant need for sound methodological as well as conceptual work to con-

struct a rigorous and relevant research stream in paternalistic leadership. Thus, in an attempt

to guide future empirical research, we review research on the measurement of paternalistic

leadership and report the most commonly used scales in the Appendix. On the basis of our

review, we identify areas of agreement and disagreement among researchers as well as gaps

that have yet to be addressed in the literature. In the final section, we suggest fruitful avenues

for future researchers to explore. We trust that this timely review will serve as a useful guide

for future inquiries to the emerging body of literature on paternalistic leadership.

Paternalistic Leadership: A Review of the Literature

Definition

Bing [2004] suggested that a boss is essentially a mutated replica of one’s original authority

figure: the parent. Psychiatrists [Freud, 1926] call this process “transference,” whereby one’s

emotions originally associated with one person, such as a father, are unconsciously shifted to

another person, usually an authority figure such as a manager. Maccoby [2004] suggested that

some of today’s best leaders are masters of manipulating the paternal transference of their fol-

lowers. He gave the movie director Francis Ford Coppola as an example and stated that Coppola

creates a family of his cast members, who address him as “Papa” or “Godfather.”

Research on paternalistic leadership has increasingly flourished within the past two

decades, but paternalism as a management concept dates back to the early works of Max

Weber, who conceptualized paternalism as one form of legitimated authority. In Economy

and Society Weber [1968] distinguished three types of legitimate domination: traditional,

charismatic, and bureaucratic. Traditional forms of rule are those led by a paternal authority

with a filial following. Paternalistic leadership relies on values such as personal loyalty to

the leader and unquestioning obedience. According to Weber, traditional paternal authority

finds its origins in the patriarchal household on which it is modeled. Padavic and Earnest

[1994] argued that paternalism as an asymmetric power relationship still continues today and

meets important material as well as psychological needs of workers. They further suggested

that employers should consider paternalism as a viable option in their strategic repertoires.

Paternalism indicates that managers take a personal interest in workers’ off-the-job lives

and attempt to promote workers’ personal welfare [Gelfand, Erez, & Aycan, 2007; Pasa,

Kabasakal, & Bodur, 2001]. In paternalistic cultures, people in authority consider it an oblig-

ation to provide protection to those under their care and in exchange expect loyalty and def-

erence [Aycan, Kanungo, & Sinha, 1999; James, Chen & Cropanzano, 1996]. Thus,

paternalistic leaders guide both the professional as well as the personal lives of their subor-

dinates in a manner resembling a parent [Gelfand et al., 2007]. Not unlike the father in a fam-

ily, management is believed to exercise its power within the constraint of protecting and

improving the lives of its employees, which relieves considerable tension on the part of

employees. This relief of tension is available not only to the employees but also to those

exercising power, because the reduction of employees’ tension renders them more compliant

and predictable [Kerfoot & Knights, 1993].

568 Journal of Management / June 2008

at UNIV OF MIAMI on May 24, 2008 //jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Westwood [1997] suggested that paternalistic leadership is effective in the Chinese business

context because it meets the “twin requirements” [compliance and harmony] of successful

leadership. Sinha [1990] suggested that the coexistence of benevolence and authority in pater-

nalistic leadership stems from values in traditional societies pertaining to the father figure, who

is nurturant, caring, and dependable but also authoritative, demanding, and a strict disciplinar-

ian. The interaction between paternal authority and benevolence may also reflect what Jackman

[1994] referred to as “velvet glove” when she characterized paternalism. The traditional father-

child relationship on which the term is based was one in which the father authoritatively dic-

tated all the behaviors and significant life decisions of his children within a moral framework

that credited the father with an unquestionable understanding of the needs and best interests of

his children. Fathers were presumed to have genuine benevolent intentions toward their

children, even as they exercised absolute authority over them [Jackman, 1994].

The current state of the literature on paternalistic leadership demonstrates substantial dis-

agreement regarding the extent to which benevolent paternalistic acts are conducted with

genuinely benevolent intentions [Aycan, 2006; Pearce, 2005]. Western scholars question the

benevolent intent in paternalistic leadership, which is reflected in metaphors on paternalism

such as “anachronism” [Padavic & Earnest, 1994: 389] and “noncoercive exploitation”

[Goodell, 1985: 252]. Uhl-Bien and Maslyn [2005] argued that paternalistic leaders demon-

strate benevolence expressly because they want something in return and that the obligations

created via benevolent acts are based on indebtedness and oppression. However, VanDeVeer

defined paternalistic acts as those “in which one person, A, interferes with another person,

S, in order to promote S’s own good” [1986: 12]. VanDeVeer specifically ruled out mali-

ciousness as a motive for paternalistic acts.

More than four decades ago, McGregor [1960] suggested two fundamental approaches to

managing people: Theory X and Theory Y. Theory X, as an authoritarian management style,

assumes that humans inherently dislike responsibility and that an average employee wants to

be directed. In contrast, Theory Y, as a participative management style, assumes that pro-

vided people are motivated, they will be self-directed, without control and punishment.

Current debate regarding the “benevolent intent” in paternalistic leadership may be better

understood in the context of these early management theories. For example, Uhl-Bien and

Maslyn [2005] clearly perceived paternalism as a Theory X management style when they

framed it in terms of “creating oppression.” On the other hand, there is abundant theoretical

and some empirical literature suggesting that paternalism is strictly and genuinely benevo-

lent and that it is distinct from authoritarianism [Aycan, 2006]. Schein [1981] noted a his-

torical trend in management systems from a period of autocracy to a period of paternalism

toward the present consultative and participative models.

Ouchi [1981] conceptualized Theory Z, a hybrid form of the American organization,

which capitalized on the best of both the American organization and the Japanese organiza-

tion and integrated paternalism as a major dimension. He believed that Japanese manage-

ment practices were not culture bound, and therefore, modified elements of the process could

be successfully applied by U.S. firms. In contrast to Theory X, which states that workers

must be driven to work, and Theory Y, which states that work is a natural activity, Theory Z

focuses on increasing employees’ loyalty to a company by providing a strong focus on the

well-being of the employees, both on and off the job. Ouchi argued that if U.S. companies

Pellegrini, Scandura / Paternalistic Leadership 569

at UNIV OF MIAMI on May 24, 2008 //jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

adopted the Theory Z management approach and brought the companies back to the idea that

“we are one big family in this organization,” they would generate higher morale and higher

loyalty. He claimed that between autocracy and democracy there lies a full range of choices

and that a high degree of paternalism is not necessarily incompatible with bottom-up, con-

sensual decision making.

Research suggests that paternalism is an effective leadership style in many non-Western

cultures [Farh et al., 2006; Martinez, 2003; Pellegrini & Scandura, 2006; Uhl-Bien et al.,

1990]. However, in the Western context, paternalistic leadership has been equated with

authoritarianism [Uhl-Bien & Maslyn, 2005], despite the negative correlation reported

between paternalism and authoritarianism [cf. Aycan & Kanungo, 1998]. In paternalistic

leadership, the main focus is on employees’ welfare; a leader’s care and protection are gen-

uine, and employees show loyalty out of respect and appreciation for the leader’s benevo-

lence. In contrast, in an authoritarian relation, the relationship is based on control and

exploitation, and subordinates show conformity solely to avoid punishment [Aycan, 2006].

Therefore, the negative association between paternalism and authoritarianism indicates that

once exploitation replaces benevolence and control replaces concern, the relationship moves

away from paternalism toward authoritarianism [Aycan, 2006].

Although paternalistic leadership is perceived as authoritative and manipulative in the

Western context, it has positive implications in cultures in which it is rooted in indigenous

psychologies such as Confucianism [Farh & Cheng, 2000]. Furthermore, paternalism is con-

gruent with the values of collectivistic and high-power distance cultures. This is because a

paternalistic leader’s involvement in employees’ personal lives is desired and expected in

collectivistic cultures, whereas it can be perceived as a violation of privacy in individualis-

tic cultures. In paternalistic relations, the superior, at times, is like a father, a close friend, or

a brother who is involved in employees’ personal lives and has the right to expect personal

favors from them [Aycan, 2006]. Also, this type of relationship is based on the assumption

of a power inequality between a leader and his or her subordinates, which is accepted in

high-power-distance societies. Paternalism is criticized in the Western literature mainly

because of this unquestioned power inequality. Aycan [2006] suggested that conflicting prac-

tices in high-power-distance cultures have not been easy to reconcile for Western scholars

and as a result, their perceptions of paternalism as combining benevolence with control of

decision making have not been favorable.

Is Cultural Context a Boundary Condition?

In a recent cross-cultural study, employees in China, Pakistan, India, Turkey, and the

United States reported higher paternalistic practices than employees in Canada, Germany,

and Israel [Aycan et al., 2000]. In an earlier study, Mathur, Aycan, and Kanungo [1996]

found Indian employees to be very high on paternalistic values, and they found no signifi-

cant differences between the public and private sectors. Studies conducted by Martinez

[2003, 2005] further suggest Mexican employees to have very high paternalistic values,

because paternalism fits the Mexican cultural values of respect for hierarchical relations and

strong family and personal relationships [Morris & Pavett, 1992].

570 Journal of Management / June 2008

at UNIV OF MIAMI on May 24, 2008 //jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

In addition to strong, traditional family norms, the legal structure also influences pater-

nalistic practices. In Mexico, a society with no welfare or employment benefits, if an

employee is fired, his or her salary is the firm’s responsibility for at least 3 months [Martinez

& Dorfman, 1998]. In a similar cultural setting, in Turkey, when an employee is fired, a

lump-sum severance payment must be made, calculated as the employee’s monthly salary

multiplied by his or her years of service. Furthermore, if a female employee resigns within

1 year of getting married and claims that her husband does not want her to work, she is also

entitled to the same severance pay, which clearly shows the patriarchal nature of the family

structure and how family norms affect business organizations. In these types of societies, the

legal structure enforces a patriarchal employee-employer relationship by requiring that the

responsibility for employees’ welfare be shared by their families and by their employers

[Martinez & Dorfman, 1998].

Research suggests that Japanese employees also place a highly positive value on pater-

nalism. Uhl-Bien et al. [1990] stated that company paternalism is central to the effective

functioning of the Japanese system and that the right type of worker in Japan would be some-

one with strong beliefs in company paternalism. Furthermore, Farh et al. [2006] suggested

that paternalistic leadership is an effective strategy in Chinese family-owned businesses

because it may help maintain control over employees as well as families’ wealth. In fact,

numerous studies conducted by Farh, Cheng, and colleagues have reported that Chinese and

Taiwanese employees place a high value on paternalistic leadership. Recently, Cheng, Chou,

Wu, Huang, and Farh [2004] suggested that paternalistic leadership is still a prevalent lead-

ership style in current Chinese business organizations. Farh and Cheng [2000] stated that

paternalism stems from Confucian ideology, which is founded on social relations, such as

“benevolent leader with loyal minister” and “kind father with filial son.” These principles

form the cultural expectations that a leader should be benevolent to his or her followers.

Recent research from Malaysia further highlights the importance of paternalistic leader-

ship. Ansari, Ahmad, and Aafaqi [2004] suggested that in Malaysia, paternalistic leadership

acts as a positive reinforcer because paternalistic treatment is contingent on subordinates’

task accomplishment. Saufi, Wafa, and Hamzah [2002] found a significant positive relation-

ship between power distance and “telling leadership style,” which may explain employees’

preference for paternalistic leadership in high-power-distance societies. Because hierarchi-

cal relationships are maintained primarily through “affective reciprocity” [Roland, 1984],

the benevolent aspect of paternalistic leadership is critical for effective management in these

societies. In the Malaysian business context, Abdullah [1996] specifically recommended a

paternal style of leadership because it fits with the values and expectations of subordinates.

In addition to Malaysia, research from Turkey suggests that paternalistic leadership may

be an effective management tool in the Middle Eastern business context [Pellegrini &

Scandura, 2006]. The traditional Turkish business context reflects high power distance and

collectivistic values [Hofstede, 2001; House et al., 2004] which makes paternalistic leader-

ship a viable management strategy. Collectivists place a premium on maintaining relation-

ships and place more emphasis on obligation and loyalty [Sullivan, Mitchell, & Uhl-Bien,

2003]. The importance of “obligation and loyalty” in personal exchange relationships fits

well with the dynamics of paternalistic relationships. In collectivistic societies, personal rela-

tionships are highly valued, and employees expect frequent contact [Hofstede, 2001].

Pellegrini, Scandura / Paternalistic Leadership 571

at UNIV OF MIAMI on May 24, 2008 //jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

572 Journal of Management / June 2008

Paternalistic leadership has a positive impact on employees’ attitudes in collectivistic cul-

tures [Gelfand et al., 2007] because the care, support, and protection provided by paternal-

istic leaders may address employees’ need for frequent contact and close personal

relationships. These research findings are further illustrated in the following comment by a

Turkish employee working in New Jersey [an acquaintance of the first author]:

When I worked in Istanbul, I felt extremely overwhelmed by my managers’ interest in my per-

sonal life. After four years of working in the U.S., I now find myself longing for that attention.

American managers are disinterested and distant. They could at least ask me how my children

are doing or whether I’m planning to have more. I’m not expecting a detailed discussion about

my personal life, but I feel like managers here only focus on the task and not on us—the people.

In addition to increasing research evidence from Latin America, the Middle East, and

Pacific Asia regarding the effectiveness of paternalistic leadership, recent research from the

United States suggests that paternalism may work in the North American business context as

well. In fact, evidence from the United States suggests that even authoritarian leadership may

produce member satisfaction in large, task-oriented groups [Stogdill, 1974]. In a 10-country

study conducted by Aycan et al. [2000], American employees reported higher paternalistic

values compared with employees from Canada, Germany, and Israel. In a recent empirical

study, Pellegrini, Scandura, and Jayaraman [2007] found paternalistic treatment to signifi-

cantly and positively influence employees’ organizational commitment in the North

American context. Ansari et al. [2004] suggested that the crux of the issue is not the match

between style and geographic location. Rather, the answer lies in the fit between the style of

a leader and that of his or her followers, and it may be that in the United States, subordinates

with certain values, such as a high need for affiliation or high respect for authority, may

desire paternalism and be more productive under paternalistic leadership.

Mapping the Domain of Paternalistic Leadership as a Construct

On the basis of our review of the literature, we argue that the conflicting perspectives

among researchers on paternalistic leadership do not stem from perceptual differences

among Western and non-Western scholars but rather that the discrepancy results from a lack

of sufficient construct clarity. A construct is literally something that scientists “construct,”

and therefore, construct validation is a critical issue in scientific generalization [Nunnally &

Bernstein, 1994].

The first step in construct validation of paternalistic leadership is specifying the domain

of observables related to this construct. During our literature review, we observed that dif-

ferent researchers referred to different domains of the overall “paternalistic leadership” con-

struct, whereas others referred simply to different leadership constructs. Yet they all cited

“paternalism” or paternalistic leadership as their construct of interest. For example, Uhl-Bien

and Maslyn referred to paternalistic leadership as “problematic and undesirable” [2005: 1],

whereas Pellegrini and Scandura referred to paternalism as an “effective strategy” [2006:

268]. We suggest that this divergence is a direct result of their focus on different leadership

constructs, because it appears that Uhl-Bien and Maslyn studied authoritarianism, whereas

at UNIV OF MIAMI on May 24, 2008 //jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Pellegrini, Scandura / Paternalistic Leadership 573

Pellegrini and Scandura’s focus was on “benevolence.” It is unfortunate that both studies

cited paternalistic leadership as their construct of interest when they actually examined dis-

tinct leadership domains.

The domain of paternalistic leadership has mainly been studied by Farh, Cheng, and col-

leagues [Farh & Cheng, 2000; Farh et al., 2006] and Aycan [2006]. On the basis of their

research in China, Farh and Cheng [2000] proposed a model of paternalistic leadership as con-

sisting of three dimensions: authoritarianism, benevolence, and morality. Authoritarianism

refers to leader behaviors that assert authority and control and demand unquestioning obedi-

ence from subordinates. Under authoritarian leadership, subordinates comply and abide by

leaders’ requests without dissent. Benevolence refers to leader behaviors that demonstrate indi-

vidualized, holistic concern for subordinates’ personal and family well-being. In return, subor-

dinates feel grateful and obliged to repay when the situation allows. The third dimension,

morality, depicts leader behaviors that demonstrate superior personal virtues [e.g., does not

abuse authority for personal gain, acts as an exemplar in personal and work conduct], which

lead subordinates to respect and identify with the leader. On the basis of these dimensions, Farh

and Cheng defined paternalistic leadership as “a style that combines strong discipline and

authority with fatherly benevolence and moral integrity” [2000: 94].

Recent empirical studies conducted in East Asia found authoritarianism to correlate neg-

atively with the other two dimensions, benevolence and morality. Authoritarianism not only

correlated negatively with the other two dimensions, it was also negatively associated with

subordinate outcomes, such as team members’ commitment to and satisfaction with team

leaders [Cheng, Huang, & Chou, 2002], loyalty toward leaders, trust in leaders, and organi-

zational citizenship behavior [Cheng, Shieh, & Chou, 2002]. In contrast, benevolence and

morality were positively associated with each other and showed positive relationships with

these outcome variables as well as subordinates’ identification with, compliance with, and

gratitude toward leaders [Cheng et al., 2004]. Given the negative interdimensional correla-

tions among the three domains, recent research by Farh, Cheng, and colleagues suggests that

an overall paternalistic leadership construct is not very useful and that the scales should be

used separately [Chou et al., 2005; Farh et al., 2006].

Aycan [2006] also concurred that paternalistic leadership is not a unified construct. She dis-

tinguished among four distinct leadership approaches and suggested that they are not interre-

lated dimensions of an overall paternalistic leadership construct but represent completely

distinct styles of leadership as separate, independent constructs. On the basis of two dimensions

[i.e., behavior and underlying intent], she developed a 2 ×2 matrix describing four distinct styles

of leadership: benevolent paternalism, exploitative paternalism, authoritarian approach, and

authoritative approach. With this model, she argued that paternalism is not a unified construct

and that it is not equal to authoritarianism, as has been portrayed in the Western literature.

The overt leader behavior shared by benevolent and exploitative paternalism is “care and

nurturance.” In benevolent paternalism, a leader has a genuine concern for employees’ wel-

fare, and employees’ show loyalty and deference out of respect and appreciation for the

employer’s care and protection [Aycan, 2006]. In contrast, the overt leader behavior in

exploitative paternalism is also care and nurturance, but it is provided solely to elicit

employees’ compliance to achieve organizational objectives. Employees in exploitative rela-

tionships show loyalty and deference primarily because the leaders are capable of fulfilling

their needs as well as depriving them from critical resources [Aycan, 2006].

at UNIV OF MIAMI on May 24, 2008 //jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

574 Journal of Management / June 2008

The overt leader behavior shared by authoritarian and authoritative leadership is “con-

trol.” What distinguishes the two styles is the underlying intent. In authoritarian manage-

ment, a leader exploits rewards and punishments to make subordinates comply. In other

words, subordinates show conformity to receive rewards or avoid punishment. In contrast,

authoritative leaders also exercise control, but the underlying intent is to promote subordi-

nates’ welfare [i.e., benevolence]. Subordinates know that the rules are for their benefit and

respect the leader’s decisions and willingly comply with the rules [Aycan, 2006].

With Aycan’s [2006] delineation of distinct paternalistic leadership styles, it became more

apparent that the disagreements among authors on the effectiveness of paternalistic leader-

ship originated primarily from a lack of construct clarity. For example, Uhl-Bien and Maslyn

suggested that “the type of obligation created by paternalism is one of indebtness and

oppression” [2005: 2]. They further argued that “paternalistic leaders demonstrate ‘benevo-

lence’ expressly because they want something in return. They do not do it for the good of the

employee” [2005: 2]. Clearly, despite their reference to paternalistic leadership, they actu-

ally criticized “exploitative paternalism.” On the other hand, we suggest that Martinez

focused on “benevolent paternalism” when she suggested that paternalistic leaders’

supportive actions move the employment relationship into boundaries that are not typical of

most employment relationships [i.e., personal loans, high degree of personal interest]. As a

result, leaders possess subtle control over employees’ responsiveness to flexibility in work

schedules, overtime hours, and other dimensions of the employment relationship. [2003: 16]

Similar to Martinez, Pellegrini and Scandura also commended benevolent paternalism when

they referred to paternalism as an “effective strategy” [2006: 268].

Accordingly, we may infer from previous research that exploitative paternalism does not

predict desired outcomes [Uhl-Bien & Maslyn, 2005], but benevolent paternalism may influ-

ence positive employee attitudes [Gelfand et al., 2007; Pellegrini et al., 2007]. Future

research needs to probe further into benevolent paternalism and examine how it affects cog-

nitive and behavioral outcomes in work organizations.

Measurement in Current Paternalistic Leadership Research

Much previous research on leadership took place before measurement quality was ade-

quately investigated, and one consequence of this is that a substantial proportion of these

large bodies of literature is seriously compromised with respect to interpretability

[Schriesheim, Hinkin, & Podsakoff, 1991]. We have specifically been concerned about mea-

surement quality in paternalistic leadership research, and in fact, we have become convinced

that the disparity among authors as well as conflicting and uninterpretable findings stem

from the fact that substantive paternalistic leadership research began before measurement

quality was adequately investigated.

We suggest that an accepted measure of either “benevolent” or “exploitative” paternalis-

tic leadership has not yet emerged. There are a number of previously used scales [Aycan et

al., 2000; Cheng, Chou, & Farh, 2000; Pellegrini & Scandura, 2006], but there is insufficient

information regarding their psychometric properties. For example, Cheng et al. [2000] con-

ceptualized paternalistic leadership as a three-dimensional construct involving benevolence

at UNIV OF MIAMI on May 24, 2008 //jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

[i.e., holistic concern for subordinate’s well-being], morality [i.e., demonstrating superior

personal virtues], and authoritarianism [i.e., authority and control over subordinates]. In later

studies, they found authoritarianism to negatively correlate with the other two dimensions

and concluded that each dimension represented distinct leadership styles rather than subdo-

mains of an overall paternalistic leadership construct. They developed a scale for each lead-

ership style [see the Appendix], but the scales were specifically developed for use in China

and have not been validated outside of the Chinese context. Therefore, at present, these are

indigenous scales that are yet to be validated in the Western business context. In addition,

Pellegrini and Scandura [2006] used a scale of benevolent paternalism measured with the

item pool developed by Aycan [2006]. They used the scale in the Turkish, Indian, and North

American business contexts [Pellegrini & Scandura, 2006; Pellegrini et al., 2007], but it

needs to be validated in other cultures.

Furthermore, more research is needed to establish statistical divergence from theoretically

related constructs. Cheng [1995] proposed paternalism to be similar to but distinct from

leader-member exchange [LMX] by suggesting that the exercise of paternalistic leadership is

highly personal in nature; that is, the boss does not treat all subordinates the same but rou-

tinely categorizes subordinates into in-group and out-group members. Pellegrini et al. [2007]

examined the relationship between benevolent paternalism and LMX and established dis-

criminant validity via a confirmatory factor analysis. Cheng et al. [2004] suggested that trans-

formational leadership and paternalistic leadership sound similar because they both involve

“individualized care.” Accordingly, they examined whether paternalistic leadership would

have unique explanatory power on outcomes while controlling for transformational leader-

ship, and they found all three dimensions [benevolence, morality, and authoritarianism] to

account for additional variance in explaining identification, compliance, and gratitude.

Another measurement concern is that research has yet to examine paternalistic leadership

from the leader’s perspective. Previous research has focused primarily on subordinates’

responses, but the correlation between leaders’ and subordinates’ ratings of similar leader-

ship scales is low enough to raise questions about scale validity for one or both sources. For

example, Gerstner and Day [1997] found that the association between LMX and perfor-

mance was stronger when LMX was measured from the leader’s point of view. Also, Raabe

and Beehr [2003] found that mentors believed they were giving more career support than

protégés believed they were getting, but protégés reported greater psychosocial support than

mentors indicated providing. Measurement perspective is an important issue because it may

act as a moderator of the relationship between paternalism and its correlates. For example,

the association between benevolent paternalism and employees’ organizational commitment

may be stronger when paternalism is measured from employees’ perspective compared with

a leader’s point of view.

Establishing construct validity is essential in developing a theoretically grounded

research program. Accordingly, in paternalistic leadership literature, a substantial amount

of research is needed to determine the construct validity of the commonly used scales and

what outcome variables they are related to. More rigorous empirical research, along with

more systematic construct validation, should advance the rigor and relevance of research on

paternalistic leadership.

Pellegrini, Scandura / Paternalistic Leadership 575

at UNIV OF MIAMI on May 24, 2008 //jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

576 Journal of Management / June 2008

Research Findings

Much of the early empirical research on paternalistic leadership studied paternalism as a

unidimensional construct. These studies found paternalistic leadership to be positively

related to numerous outcome variables, such as LMX, job satisfaction, obligation, and goal

setting [Aycan et al., 1999; Uhl-Bien et al., 1990]. With Cheng et al.’s [2000] delineation of

three dimensions [i.e., benevolence, authoritarianism, and morality], Cheng and colleagues

started to examine paternalism as a multidimensional construct, studying the differential

impacts of different domains on outcome variables. Research using Cheng et al.’s triad

model of paternalistic leadership has exclusively been conducted in China and Taiwan. On

the other hand, Aycan et al. [1999, 2000] examined paternalism as a unidimensional con-

struct in their empirical studies, conducted primarily in Canada, India, the United States, and

Turkey. Recently, Pellegrini and Scandura [2006] and Pellegrini et al. [2007] studied pater-

nalism in the Turkish, Indian, and North American business contexts and suggested that

paternalistic practices may positively influence employees’ attitudes regardless of the cul-

tural context.

Over the past two decades, an impressive body of research on paternalistic leadership has

emerged. To provide a reference for the reader, Tables 1 and 2 summarize the empirical stud-

ies on paternalistic leadership to date. Table 1 lists the variables that have been examined as

antecedents of paternalism. Table 2 lists the outcome variables as well as the moderator and

mediator variables that have been examined. Tables 1 and 2 also include references to the

measurement instruments used in these studies [see the Appendix for scale items].

Antecedents of Paternalistic Leadership

Although management scholars are increasingly enthusiastic about paternalistic leader-

ship research, researchers have only recently focused attention on the development [i.e.,

antecedents] of these relationships. Currently, there is very limited cumulative knowledge

regarding the antecedents of paternalism. However, to further validate paternalistic leader-

ship research, we need to identify the various causal mechanisms through which paternalis-

tic relationships develop. In search of a deeper understanding of paternalism in the

contemporary organizational context, Martinez [2003] conducted field interviews with

Mexican managers and identified several antecedent variables, such as employees’ respect

for social hierarchy, family-like organizational climates, frequent interactions with decision

makers, high value for personal relationships, and limited employee decision making.

Martinez also observed that the limited formalization of rules and procedures may facilitate

situational-based decision making, which provides greater leverage for paternalistic leaders

to respond to employees’ needs and requests.

LMX is another antecedent variable that has been examined in previous studies. Ansari

et al. [2004] suggested that in Malaysia, paternalistic leadership is provided only to those

who have high-quality exchange relationships with leaders and that paternalistic treatment is

contingent on subordinates’ task accomplishment. Recent empirical research from Turkey

at UNIV OF MIAMI on May 24, 2008 //jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Pellegrini, Scandura / Paternalistic Leadership 577

also found LMX quality to be a significant correlate of paternalistic leadership [Pellegrini &

Scandura, 2006]. Pellegrini and Scandura [2006] suggested that paternalism implies volun-

tary compliance, and therefore, followers who experience high levels of trust, obligation, and

respect in their relations with a leader [i.e., high-quality LMX] may be more likely to accept

the boss’s authority as a father figure. Furthermore, paternalism necessitates a considerable

investment on the part of a leader, and therefore, leaders may be more willing to engage in

paternalistic practices with those employees with whom they have high-quality LMX rela-

tionships. However, more research is needed to uncover antecedents separately for leaders

and subordinates to better understand the dynamics of paternalistic relationships, because

different variables may be differentially important for leaders and followers. Also, research

that examines the longitudinal development of paternalistic relations over time is needed to

better understand the dynamics of these developmental relationships.

Outcomes of Paternalistic Leadership

The vast majority of research on paternalistic leadership has focused on the outcomes of

paternalistic leadership. Also, as shown in Table 2, research on consequences of paternalism

has so far been exclusively conducted in field settings.

On the basis of their research, Uhl-Bien et al. [1990] suggested that Japanese employees

place a highly positive value on paternalism and that company paternalism is central to the

effective functioning of the Japanese business system. They suggested that paternalism fos-

ters trust among workers and managers, affective motivation versus economic motivation,

cooperation throughout the organization, group harmony, and lifetime employee commit-

ment. They also found paternalism to be positively and significantly related to formal and

Table 1

Antecedents of Paternalistic Leadership [PL]

Predictor

PL Construct Variable[s] Type of Sample Measure and

Author[s] Measured and Source Study Characteristics Source of PL

Martinez [2003] Paternalism Respect for Field 7 Mexican Field

social hierarchy interview leaders interviews

[L] [L]

Organizational

culture [L]

Organizational

structure [L]

Pellegrini & Paternalism Leader-member Field survey 185 employees Pellegrini &

Scandura exchange [M] in Turkey Scandura

[2006] [2006]

[M]

Note: L =variable assessed on the basis of leader reports; M =variable assessed on the basis of member reports.

at UNIV OF MIAMI on May 24, 2008 //jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Table 2

Outcomes of Paternalistic Leadership [PL]

Moderator/

Outcome Mediator

PL Dimension Variable[s] Variables Type of Sample Measure and

Author[s] Measured and Source and Source Study Characteristics Source of PL

Uhl-Bien, Tierney,

Graen, &

Wakabayashi

[1990]

Aycan, Kanungo,

& Sinha [1999]

Aycan et al.

[2000]

Wu, Hsu, &

Cheng [2002]

Company

paternalism

Paternalism

Authoritarian

Formal career

development

[M]

Informal career

investment [M]

Leader-member

exchange [M]

Job satisfaction [M]

Autonomy [M]

Goal setting [M]

Empowerment

[M]

Performance-

extrinsic reward

contingency [M]

Participation [M]

Proactivity [M]

Obligation toward

others [M]

Job satisfaction

[M]

Internal locus of

control [M]

Malleability [M]

Proactivity [M]

Reactivity [M]

Obligation [M]

Angry emotional

feeling [M]

Suppression of

angry emotions

[M]

Field survey

1,075 employees

in Japan

165 employees in

Canada and 482

employees in

India

1,954 employees

in 10 countries

609 employees in

Taiwan

Uhl-Bien et al.

[1990] [M]

Mathur, Aycan, &

Kanungo [1996]

[M]

Aycan et al.

[2000] [M]

Cheng, Chou, &

Farh [2000] [M]

[continued]

578

at UNIV OF MIAMI on May 24, 2008 //jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Table 2 [continued]

Moderator/

Outcome Mediator

PL Dimension Variable[s] Variables Type of Sample Measure and

Author[s] Measured and Source and Source Study Characteristics Source of PL

Cheng, Huang, &

Chou [2002]

Cheng et al.

[2002]

Martinez [2003]

Cheng et al.

[2004]

Chou, Cheng, &

Jen [2005]

Benevolent

Authoritarian

Benevolent

Authoritarian

Moral

Paternalism

Benevolent

Authoritarian

Moral

Benevolent

Authoritarian

Moral

Satisfaction with

leader [M]

Commitment to

team [M]

Self-ratings of per-

formance [M]

Intent to stay [M]

Organizational

citizenship

behavior [L]

Flexibility [L]

Loyalty [L]

Trust [L]

Friendship [L]

Identification [M]

Compliance [M]

Gratitude [M]

Loyalty to

supervisor [L]

Organizational

citizenship

behavior [L]

Vertical team

interaction [M]

Horizontal team

interaction [M]

Intrateam

interaction [M]

Affective loyalty

to leader [M]

Obligatory loyalty

to leader [M]

Trust in leader [M]

Subordinate

authority

orientation [M]

Subordinate job

dependence [M]

Subordinate

affective

dependence [M]

Leader’s manager-

ial competence

[M]

Field survey

400 employees in

Taiwan

509 principal-

teacher dyads in

Taiwan

7 Mexican leaders

543 employees in

Taiwan

275 leaders and

142 subordinates

[matched dyads]

in Taiwan

Cheng et al.

[2000] [M]

Cheng et al.

[2000] [M]

Field interviews [L]

Cheng et al.

[2000] [M]

Cheng et al.

[2000] [M]

[continued]

579

at UNIV OF MIAMI on May 24, 2008 //jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Table 2 [continued]

Moderator/

Outcome Mediator

PL Dimension Variable[s] Variables Type of Sample Measure and

Author[s] Measured and Source and Source Study Characteristics Source of PL

Pellegrini &

Scandura [2006]

Farh, Cheng,

Chou, & Chu

[2006]

Pellegrini,

Scandura, &

Jayaraman

[2007]

Paternalism

Benevolent

Authoritarian

Moral

Benevolent

Job performance

[M]

Identification [M]

Compliance [M]

Gratitude [M]

Subordinate fear

of supervisor

[M]

Supervisor

satisfaction [M]

Organizational

commitment [M]

Organizational

commitment [M]

Job satisfaction

[M]

Subordinate

traditionality [M]

Subordinate

dependence [M]

Subordinate fear

of supervisor

[M]

Gratitude [M]

Field survey

185 employees in

Turk ey

292 employees in

China

207 employees in

India and 215

employees in the

United States

Pellegrini &

Scandura,

2006 [M]

Cheng et al.

[2000] [M]

Pellegrini &

Scandura, 2006

[M]

Note: L =variable assessed on the basis of leader reports; M =variable assessed on the basis of member reports.

580

at UNIV OF MIAMI on May 24, 2008 //jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Pellegrini, Scandura / Paternalistic Leadership 581

informal career investments, high-quality LMX relations, and employees’ job satisfaction.

Given the effectiveness of paternalism in the Japanese context, Uhl-Bien et al. concluded

their study by asking, “What is the American analogue of company paternalism?” [1990:

428]. They called for research for a corresponding construct rather than studying paternal-

ism in the Western context, because they believed that paternalism implied submissiveness

and dependency and would therefore be ineffective in the North American context. We agree

that exploitative paternalism would be ineffective in the United States because of its empha-

sis on high power distance and implications of forced submissiveness and dependency, but

we suggest that benevolent paternalism may have potential as a viable leadership strategy

across cultural boundaries. We concur with Ouchi’s [1981] recommendation that benevolent

paternalism may generate higher morale and higher loyalty in the North American context

and therefore may provide the answer to Uhl-Bien et al.’s inquiry.

Another early empirical work on paternalism was conducted by Mathur et al. [1996] in

India. These researchers compared public and private organizations in terms of their human

resources practices by studying the effects of five sociocultural variables, one of which was

paternalism. They found paternalism to be a highly salient cultural dimension, and its sig-

nificance showed no variation between public and private enterprises. Aycan et al. [1999] built

on this early work by comparing Indian and Canadian business organizations on organiza-

tional culture and human resource practices. Their results suggested that Indian employees

valued paternalistic leadership to a greater extent than Canadians. They also found strong

positive relations among paternalism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and loyalty

toward community. Furthermore, via a series of mediated multiple regression analyses, they

found paternalism to be positively related to employees’ reactivity and obligation, which in

turn influenced joint decision making. In addition, paternalism was negatively related to

proactivity and internal locus of control, which in turn influenced low autonomy, low

empowerment practices, and low performance-reward contingency. In a more recent study,

Aycan et al. [2000] built on this research with a 10-country comparison examining the effects

of four sociocultural dimensions [one of which was paternalism] on work outcomes. They

found India, Pakistan, China, Turkey, and the United States to be higher on paternalistic val-

ues compared with Israel, Germany, Romania, Russia, and Canada. In all countries except

Romania, the United States, and China, paternalism positively influenced obligation toward

others. Furthermore, in Germany, Israel, Romania, Russia, and China, paternalism nega-

tively influenced employees’ proactivity. Aycan et al. [2000] stated that paternalism [com-

pared with fatalism, power distance, and loyalty toward the community] yielded the largest

difference among these countries.

Paternalism has also been widely researched in the Chinese business context, because

some of the key elements of paternalistic leadership are deeply rooted in Chinese traditions

and can be traced back to China’s patriarchal family system, Confucian ethic of respect for

vertical order, and long history of imperial rule [Farh & Cheng, 2000; Redding, 1990].

Empirical research on paternalism flourished with Cheng et al.’s [2000] depiction of pater-

nalistic leadership as consisting of three dimensions: benevolence, authoritarianism, and

morality. However, subsequent research consistently found authoritarianism to be negatively

related to the other two dimensions as well as subordinate outcomes. Research suggests that

authoritarianism evokes angry emotions [Wu, Hsu, & Cheng, 2002] and subordinates’ fear

of their supervisors [Farh et al., 2006]. It also negatively affects team interaction [Cheng,

at UNIV OF MIAMI on May 24, 2008 //jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

582 Journal of Management / June 2008

Huang, et al., 2002]. Furthermore, Farh et al. [2006] found authoritarianism to be positively

related to subordinates’ fear of their supervisors, which is in turn negatively related to orga-

nizational commitment. In contrast, benevolence and morality were found to be positively

related to satisfaction with a team’s leader, commitment to the team [Cheng, Huang, et al.,

2002], organizational commitment [Farh et al., 2006], loyalty toward leaders, trust in leaders,

organizational citizenship behavior [Cheng, Shieh, et al., 2002], identification, compliance

without dissent, and gratitude [Cheng et al., 2004].

Redding [1990] suggested that autonomous and independent subordinates may likely

reject paternalism. Accordingly, several subsequent studies examined as a moderator “sub-

ordinate traditionality,” which refers to the extent to which individuals are willing to respect

hierarchy in the society [Yang, Yu, & Yeh, 1989]. Cheng et al. [2004] found that for subor-

dinates high in traditionality, authoritarianism had a positive relationship with identification,

compliance without dissent, and gratitude, whereas for those low in traditionality, authori-

tarianism was negatively correlated with these outcome variables. Traditionality did not

interact with either benevolence or morality to influence subordinate outcomes. A subse-

quent study also found authoritarianism to show a positive effect on subordinates with high

authority orientation but no effect on subordinates with low authority orientation [Cheng et al.,

2004]. More recently, consistent with previous findings, Farh et al. [2006] found leader

authoritarianism to be more negatively associated with satisfaction with supervision for

employees with low rather than high traditionality values.

Another variable that has been examined as a moderator is “subordinate dependence.”

Farh et al. [2006] found that subordinates who are dependent on their supervisors for work

resources, benefits, and job content tend to respond more favorably to authoritarianism than

those who are not dependent. Also, authoritarianism had a stronger positive effect on fear of

supervisor when subordinate dependence was high than when it was low. Chou, Cheng, and

Jen [2005] studied both affective as well as job dependence. The former involves the degree

to which a subordinate cares about a supervisor’s judgment and seeks the supervisor’s social

support during their interaction, whereas the latter refers to the material resources that are

needed for job completion and performance awards [Cheng, 1995]. The results suggested

that authoritarian leadership was negatively related to loyalty to supervisor, organizational

citizenship behavior, and job performance at low levels of affective and job dependence,

whereas the relationships were slightly positive for high levels of subordinate dependence.

Paternalism is one of the most salient dimensions in Pacific Asian business contexts

[Dorfman & Howell, 1988] such as China, Japan, and India. In addition, the emerging liter-

ature from Latin America as well as the Middle East suggests paternalism to be a prevalent

managerial strategy in these cultural contexts [Ali, 1993; Aycan et al., 2000; Ayman &

Chemers, 1991]. In Latin America, people produce work for others primarily because of per-

sonal relationships. Employers can rely on employees to perform tasks because they have a

sense of personal loyalty to their employers [Osland, Franco, & Osland, 1999]. Formal job

descriptions are simply not enough to guarantee compliance or service. Albert [1996] sug-

gested that the successful management approach in Latin America is “personalism,” which

refers to the personalized attention given to employees. Also, both Latin America and the

Middle East are collectivistic cultures [Hofstede, 2001; House et al., 2004] in which strong

senses of family ties and loyalty and obligations owed to family members are also evident in

organizational life [Osland et al., 1999]. According to Dickson, Den Hartog, and Mitchelson

at UNIV OF MIAMI on May 24, 2008 //jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

[2003], cultures of developing countries tend to share such characteristics as being high on

power distance, having strong family bonds, and expecting organizations to take care of their

workers as well as the workers’ families. These unique attributes are reflected in a paternal-

istic style of leadership, which makes it a prevalent management style in cultures that value

collectivism as well as hierarchical social relations. In these business contexts, employees

expect bosses to take a personal interest in their nonwork lives, such as attending baptisms,

weddings, and funerals [Pellegrini & Scandura, 2006]. For example, it is not uncommon for

companies to routinely place newspaper advertisements extending their condolences to the

family when an employee’s relative dies [Osland et al., 1999].

Much research on paternalism in Latin America emerged from Mexico, where paternal-

ism is a prevalent management style [Martinez, 2005; Morris & Pavett, 1992]. According to

Boyer [2000], paternalism is a successful strategy because it is derived from traditional fam-

ily roles and established Catholic precepts that cast employers as caretakers and family of

their workers. Martinez [2005] argued that personal relationships are highly valued in

Mexican society, which is exhibited in employees’ expectations for frequent contact. She

suggested that the benefits accrued from managers’ frequent and close contact spill over to

employees’ performance and quality of work.

Research from the Middle East emerged primarily from Turkey, where paternalistic leadership

is a highly prevalent leadership approach [Aycan et al., 2000; Pellegrini & Scandura, 2006].

Despite the fact that most research emerged from Turkey, the unifying role of Islam in this region

plays an important role in creating a common culture in the Middle East. Also, the presence of the

Ottoman Empire’s [now Turkey] influence over the region has been a driving force toward com-

monalities in sociocultural values [Dorfman & House, 2004]. For example, in the Middle East, the

concept of leadership is rooted in traditional military concepts [Scandura, Von Glinow, & Lowe,

1999] which reinforces authoritarian leadership practices. Additionally, Pellegrini and Scandura

[2006] suggested that in an economically unstable environment, it is important for employees to

feel secure and protected, which makes paternalistic leadership an effective management style in

countries with unstable cycles of economic recovery. Recently, Pellegrini and Scandura found

paternalism to be strongly and positively related to employee job satisfaction in the Turkish busi-

ness context. Furthermore, paternalism fully mediated the positive relationship between LMX and

job satisfaction. In another recent study, Pellegrini et al. [2007] found benevolent paternalism to be

positively related to organizational commitment in the North American context, which suggests

that benevolent paternalism may also have merit in the Western business context.

In addition to outcomes related to employees’ work attitudes and behavior, the benefits of

paternalistic relationships may accrue at the organizational level as well as the management

level. Some studies have suggested that paternalistic practices benefit organizations via

increased employee flexibility [Padavic & Earnest, 1994], decreased turnover intentions

[Cheng et al., 2002; Kim, 1994], reduced costs and increased control [Padavic & Earnest,

1994], increased job performance [Chou et al., 2005], and organizational commitment [Farh

et al., 2006]. However, there is still much room for theoretical development for outcomes

associated with paternalistic leadership at the organizational level. For example, institutional

theory [Meyer & Rowan, 1977] may be applied to better understand whether paternalistic

practices occur more frequently in certain types of organizational structures, such as in

bureaucratic compared with entrepreneurial settings.

Pellegrini, Scandura / Paternalistic Leadership 583

at UNIV OF MIAMI on May 24, 2008 //jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Directions for Future Research

With increasing globalization, corporate downsizing, and hypercompetitive markets, the

bond between employers and employees has shifted from a long-term relationship involving

loyalty and commitment to a contractlike economic exchange [Tsui & Wu, 2005]. On the

other hand, research suggests that the traditional loyalty approach produces the most pro-

ductive, loyal, and committed employees, along with strong company performance [Tsui,

Pearce, Porter, & Tripoli, 1997]. Accordingly, in the past several years, leadership

researchers have focused their attention on interpersonal and relational skills as being impor-

tant for leadership effectiveness [Dickson & Den Hartog, 2005]. One such relational leader-

ship approach is paternalistic leadership, but despite the prevalence of paternalistic

leadership in Latin America, the Middle East, and Pacific Asia, still little is known about it.

This study is only a beginning, and many issues remain to be explored.

Our review suggests that empirical research on paternalistic leadership has been relatively

limited in scope and offers few consistent findings and that many aspects of this develop-

mental relationship remain unexplored. Thus, paternalistic leadership presents tremendous

opportunities for future empirical research. Below, we address some methodological and the-

oretical issues in the current literature and discuss a number of fruitful directions for future

research.

Methodological Issues

First, there is a need to investigate the psychometric properties of the various measure-

ment scales of paternalistic leadership. Sound measurement is essential to the development

of research agendas [Hinkin, 1995]. It is interesting to note that unlike other areas of orga-

nizational behavior and leadership, measures of paternalistic leadership were developed in

countries other than the United States and are now being translated into English for use in

cross-cultural comparative work. Thus, measurement equivalence of these scales will be a

necessary step in the construct validation process in this area. There is a need to compare the

different measures to determine the degree to which they correlate with one another and the

degree to which some measures tap aspects of paternalistic leadership that others do not.

Studies of convergent and discriminant validity are needed to assess the degree to which

paternalistic leadership is similar to or different than other leadership constructs, such as

LMX and mentoring. Some measures of paternalism appear to have other constructs embed-

ded in them, such as organizational commitment and empowerment [Aycan, 2006]. Mapping

the domain of paternalistic leadership is clearly needed. At present, researchers appear to be

using the scales separately, but research is in need to see if a configurational approach may

be more appropriate in this research agenda. This approach refers to “any multidimensional

constellation of conceptually distinct characteristics that commonly occur together” [Meyer,

Tsui, & Hinings, 1993: 1175]. Meyer et al. [1993] suggested that most leadership theories

represent a reductionist stance in that they typically focus on a limited number of variables

and treat relationships as deterministic. They suggested that an alternative would be to

study leadership as a multidimensional phenomenon and analyze leaders’ relations to their

584 Journal of Management / June 2008

at UNIV OF MIAMI on May 24, 2008 //jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

contexts and the outcomes they achieve as configurational problems. Addressing such ques-

tions may move leadership research beyond univariate and bivariate analyses toward multi-

variate analyses of reciprocal and nonlinear relationships [Meyer et al., 1993]. At present, we

recommend that substantive research be approached with appropriate caution until more is

known about the psychometric qualities of paternalistic leadership scales.

Theoretical Issues

There is also much room for improvement on the theoretical front. Paternalistic leader-

ship research has been steadily maturing over the past 15 years, but more research is needed

on the outcomes of paternalistic leadership. In particular, research is needed on the perfor-

mance impact and the possible differences among different paternalistic leadership styles in

this regard. For example, research needs to investigate whether benevolence is more strongly

related to performance than authoritarian behavior. Also, interaction effects should be

explored; it may be that benevolence compensates for authoritarian leadership. More com-

plex three-way interactions may exist if one uses Cheng et al.’s [2000] conceptualization,

which includes benevolent, moral, and authoritarian leadership.

Individual difference moderators may play a role in how subordinates react to paternalis-

tic leadership. For example, subordinates with counterdependent or independent attitudes

toward authority may not respond to authoritarian leadership. Benevolence may be viewed

as manipulative for those with low levels of dispositional trust [Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman,

1995; McKnight, Cummings, & Chervany, 1998]. It would also be interesting to explore the

relationship between negative affectivity [Necowitz & Roznowski, 1994; Watson & Clark,

1984] and reactions to benevolent leadership. Those who view the world as negative in gen-

eral may interpret the authoritarian aspect of paternalism differently than those who are more

optimistic about people and relationships at work.

Context may also play a role in how subordinates react to paternalism. There is great

potential in this area for research on multiple levels of analysis. For example, groups within

organizations may develop paternalistic cultures fostered by their leaders as group members

emulate the leaders’ behavior. Paternalism may operate at the organizational level of analy-

sis. Some organizations may be more paternalistic than others, and the locus of the effects

of paternalism may be due more to the organizational culture of paternalism than to the

leader’s behavior. Analytical techniques such as within-and-between-analysis [Dansereau,

Alutto, & Yammarino, 1984] or hierarchical linear modeling [Hofmann, 1997] can be used

to explore the effects of paternalism at different levels of analysis.

Research will be needed to measure perceptions of paternalism from both supervisors and

subordinates given this trend in leadership research [Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995]. It would be

interesting to examine the degree to which supervisors and subordinates agree on percep-

tions of paternalism and the relationship of this agreement to attitudes and performance.

Supervisors may not view their behavior as authoritarian, because of their benevolent intent,

but subordinates may interpret this very differently. This would be an aspect of benevolent

leadership that would benefit from qualitative inquiry to explore the meaning of paternalism

in dyads.

Pellegrini, Scandura / Paternalistic Leadership 585

at UNIV OF MIAMI on May 24, 2008 //jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

586 Journal of Management / June 2008

Paternalism may change over time. There is little conceptualization regarding how the

course of the development of the relationship may affect paternalism. For example, does

authoritarian behavior occur less in mature leader-member relationships? Does benevolence

grow over time, or is it a constant? Longitudinal research is needed to examine the course of

development of paternalism. Because paternalism is an emerging area in leadership research,

these unaddressed questions are all ripe directions for future research.

Conclusions

Our review of the literature on paternalistic leadership reveals an emerging and fascinat-

ing new area for research. As with all new concepts, care must be taken with conceptualiza-

tion and measurement prior to substantive research. It would be of benefit to this new field

of research to carefully examine existing measures and to develop consensus on a measure

so that future research is comparable across studies and over time. In this review, we suggest

that benevolent paternalism may represent a breakthrough in leadership research that may be

generalizable across cultures. The authoritarian content in some conceptualizations of pater-

nalistic leadership needs careful examination, because this might be questioned in certain

cultures that have a more egalitarian set of values. Benevolence, on the other hand, might be

a construct that has more widespread endorsement as well as practical implication. Clearly,

there is a need for further research on benevolence at the workplace.

Research has examined outcomes of paternalism, but there is a need to focus attention on

the antecedents of paternalism, which has been limited to date. Field interviews with seven

leaders in Mexico have suggested that there may be structural antecedents of paternalistic

leadership. However, the only variable that has been empirically examined as an antecedent

is LMX. Although our review shows that paternalistic leadership is a relatively new area in

management research, evidence is supportive of the relationships between paternalism and

positive work attitudes in a number of business cultures, including the Middle East, Latin

America, and Pacific Asia. There is a need to examine the relationships of paternalistic lead-

ership to performance and turnover. A number of moderators have been examined to date in

this line of research, suggesting that there are key contingencies that should be considered,

particularly individual differences among members on such variables as locus of control and

traditionality. Research on other levels of moderators is sparse, with one study examining

team processes. It is notable that there is a lack of research on organizational culture or orga-

nizational structure, which would seem to be important situational moderators.

This review updates the status of research on paternalism. We summarized the currently

available alternative measures of paternalism, noting that care must be taken in the selection of

a measure and that the measure used should be aligned with the substantive purpose of the

research. Our review has revealed a number of areas in which future research is needed, and we

have offered some suggestions for the next steps in the development of this new field. We see a

great deal of potential in this concept and hope that our review will encourage other researchers

to explore the relationships of paternalistic leadership to their own research agendas.

at UNIV OF MIAMI on May 24, 2008 //jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Pellegrini, Scandura / Paternalistic Leadership 587

APPENDIX

Paternalistic Leadership Scales

Mathur, Aycan, and Kanungo [1996]

Six-point, Likert-type scale ranging from 1 [strongly disagree] to 6 [strongly agree].

Paternalism

1. The ideal boss is like a parent.

2. Managers should provide fatherly advice and directions to their subordinates in solv-

ing their problems.

Aycan, Kanungo, Mendonca, Yu, Deller, Stahl, and Kurshid [2000]

Six-point, Likert-type scale ranging from 1 [strongly disagree] to 6 [strongly agree].

Paternalism

1. The ideal boss is like a parent.

2. Superiors know best what is good for their subordinates.

3. Managers should provide fatherly advice and directions to their subordinates.

4. People in authority should take care of their subordinates as they would take care of

their children.

5. The experience and wisdom of superiors are the best guidelines for subordinates.

Cheng, Chou, and Farh [2000]

Six-point, Likert-type scale ranging from 1 [strongly disagree] to 6 [strongly agree].

Benevolent Leadership

1. My supervisor is like a family member when he/she gets along with us.

2. My supervisor devotes all his/her energy to taking care of me.

3. Beyond work relations, my supervisor expresses concern about my daily life.

4. My supervisor ordinarily shows a kind concern for my comfort.

5. My supervisor will help me when I’m in an emergency.

6. My supervisor takes very thoughtful care of subordinates who have spent a long time

with him/her.

7. My supervisor meets my needs according to my personal requests.

8. My supervisor encourages me when I encounter arduous problems.

9. My supervisor takes good care of my family members as well.

10. My supervisor tries to understand what the cause is when I don’t perform well.

11. My supervisor handles what is difficult to do or manage in everyday life for me.

Moral Leadership

1. My supervisor never avenges a personal wrong in the name of public interest when

he/she is offended. [Reversed]

2. My supervisor employs people according to their virtues and does not envy others’

abilities and virtues.

3. My supervisor uses his/her authority to seek special privileges for himself/herself.

[Reversed]

4. My supervisor doesn’t take the credit for my achievements and contributions for

himself/herself.

5. My supervisor does not take advantage of me for personal gain.

6. My supervisor does not use guanxi [personal relationships] or back-door practices to

obtain illicit personal gains.

at UNIV OF MIAMI on May 24, 2008 //jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

588 Journal of Management / June 2008

Authoritarian Leadership

1. My supervisor asks me to obey his/her instructions completely.

2. My supervisor determined all decisions in the organization whether they are important

or not.

3. My supervisor always has the last say in the meeting.

4. My supervisor always behaves in a commanding fashion in front of employees.

5. I feel pressured when working with him/her.

6. My supervisor exercises strict discipline over subordinates.

7. My supervisor scolds us when we can’t accomplish our tasks.

8. My supervisor emphasizes that our group must have the best performance of all the

units in the organization.

9. We have to follow his/her rules to get things done. If not, he/she punishes us severely.

Pellegrini & Scandura [2006]

Five-point, Likert-type scale ranging from 1 [strongly disagree] to 5 [strongly agree].

Paternalism

My manager:

1. Is interested in every aspect of his/her employees’ lives.

2. Creates a family environment in the workplace.

3. Consults his/her employees on job matters.

4. Is like an elder family member [father/mother, elder brother/sister] for his/her employees.

5. Gives advice to his/her employees on different matters as if he/she were an elder family

member.

6. Makes decisions on behalf of his/her employees without asking for their approval.

7. Knows each of his/her employees intimately [e.g., personal problems, family life, etc.].

8. Exhibits emotional reactions in his/her relations with the employees; doesn’t refrain

from showing emotions such as joy, grief, anger.

9. Participates in his/her employees’ special days [e.g., weddings, funerals, etc.].

10. Tries his/her best to find a way for the company to help his/her employees whenever

they need help on issues outside work [e.g., setting up home, paying for children’s tuition].

11. Expects his/her employees to be devoted and loyal, in return for the attention and con-

cern he/she shows them.

12. Gives his/her employees a chance to develop themselves when they display low per-

formance.

13. Believes he/she is the only one who knows what is best for his/her employees.

Aycan [2006]

Five-point, Likert-type scale ranging from 1 [extremely unlikely] to 5 [extremely likely].

Employee Commitment to the Company

1. Employees should always be concerned with company’s future and welfare.

2. Whenever need arises employees should voluntarily work overtime.

3. Employees should perceive and accept the workplace as their own family.

4. Employees must show loyalty and deference to the company as well as their superiors.

5. When an emergency occurs in the company, managers have the right to ask employ-

ees to immediately attend to the situation even if this requires employees to compromise

their private life.

at UNIV OF MIAMI on May 24, 2008 //jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Pellegrini, Scandura / Paternalistic Leadership 589

6. An ideal manager is able to create a family atmosphere at workplace.

Superior’s Involvement in Subordinate’s Personal Life

1. An employee’s happiness and sorrow is his/her supervisor’s happiness and sorrow.

2. An ideal manager/supervisor should be involved in and concerned with different

aspects of his/her subordinate’s lives.

3. An ideal manager/supervisor is someone who could guide his/her employees in matters

that concern their private lives.

4. When an employee has marital problems, the supervisor is expected to act as a media-

tor between the employee and his/her spouse.

5. An ideal manager/supervisor takes care of his/her employees the same way as s/he

would do for his/her own children.

“Father” Role of the Superior

1. An ideal manager/supervisor provides advice and guidance.

2. An ideal manager/supervisor is like a father.

Superior’s Empowering Behavior

1. An ideal manager/supervisor consults employees in decisions concerning them.

2. One of the basic responsibilities of supervisors is to contribute to personal and profes-

sional development of employees.

Superior as the Team Integrator and Harmonizer

1. When there is conflict between two employees, their supervisor should speak with one

of them on behalf of the other to solve the problem.

2. An ideal manager/supervisor protects employees from outside criticisms.

References

Abdullah, A. 1996. Going glocal: Cultural dimensions in Malaysian management. Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian

Institute of Management.

Albert, R. D. 1996. A framework and model for understanding Latin American and Latino/Hispanic cultural pat-

terns. In D. Landis & R. S. Bhagat [Eds.], Handbook of intercultural training [2nd ed.]: 327-348. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ali, A. J. 1993. Decision-making style, individualism, and attitudes toward risk of Arab executives. International

Studies of Management and Organization, 23[3]: 53-73.

Ansari, M. A., Ahmad, Z. A., & Aafaqi, R. 2004. Organizational leadership in the Malaysian context. In D. Tjosvold

& K. Leung [Eds.], Leading in high growth Asia: Managing relationship for teamwork and change: 109-138.

Singapore: World Scientific.

Aycan, Z. 2006. Paternalism: Towards conceptual refinement and operationalization. In K. S. Yang, K. K. Hwang,

& U. Kim [Eds.], Scientific advances in indigenous psychologies: Empirical, philosophical, and cultural con-

tributions: 445-466. London: Sage Ltd.

Aycan, Z., & Kanungo, R. N. 1998. Paternalism: Towards conceptual refinement and operationalization. Paper pre-

sented at 14th International Congress of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Bellingham, WA.

Aycan, Z., Kanungo, R. N., Mendonca, M., Yu, K., Deller, J., Stahl, G., et al. 2000. Impact of culture on human

resource management practices: A 10-country comparison. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49:

192-221.

Aycan, Z., Kanungo, R. N., & Sinha, J.B.P. 1999. Organizational culture and human resource management prac-

tices: The model of culture fit. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30[4]: 501-516.

Ayman, R., & Chemers, M. M. 1991. The effect of leadership match on subordinate satisfaction in Mexican organiza-

tions: Some moderating influences of self-monitoring. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 40: 299-314.

at UNIV OF MIAMI on May 24, 2008 //jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Bing, S. 2004. Sun Tzu was a sissy: Conquer your enemies, promote your friends, and wage the real art of war.

New York: HarperCollins.

Boyer, C. 2000. The threads of class at La Virgen: Misrepresentation and identity at a Mexican textile mill, 1918-

1935. American Historical Review, 105[5]: 1576-1598.

Cheng, B. S. 1995. Paternalistic authority and leadership: A case study of a Taiwanese CEO. Bulletin of the Institute

of Ethnology Academic Sinica, 79: 119-173.

Cheng, B. S., Chou L. F., & Farh, J. L. 2000. A triad model of paternalistic leadership: The constructs and mea-

surement. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 14: 3-64.

Cheng, B. S., Chou, L. F., Wu, T. Y., Huang, M. P., & Farh, J. L. 2004. Paternalistic leadership and subordinate

responses: Establishing a leadership model in Chinese organizations. Asian Journal of Social Psychology,7:

89-117.

Cheng, B. S., Huang, M. P., & Chou, L. F. 2002. Paternalistic leadership and its effectiveness: Evidence from

Chinese organizational teams. Journal of Psychology in Chinese Societies, 3[1]: 85-112.

Cheng, B. S., Shieh, P. Y., & Chou, L. F. 2002. The principal’s leadership, leader-member exchange quality, and the

teacher’s extra-role behavior: The effects of transformational and paternalistic leadership. Indigenous

Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 17: 105-161.

Chou, L. F., Cheng, B. S., & Jen, C. K. 2005. The contingent model of paternalistic leadership: Subordinate depen-

dence and leader competence. Paper presented at the meeting of the Academy of Management, Honolulu,

Hawaii.

Colella, A., Garcia, F., Reidel, L., & Triana, M. 2005. Paternalism: “Hidden” discrimination. Paper presented at

the meeting of the Academy of Management, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Dansereau, F., Alutto, J. A., & Yammarino, F. J. 1984. Theory testing in organizational behavior: The variant

approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Dickson, M. W., & Den Hartog, D. N. 2005. What good is this to me? Managerial implications of global leadership

research. In R. R. Sims & S. A. Quatro [Eds.], Leadership: Succeeding in the private, public, and not-for-profit

sectors: 348-366. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Dickson, M. W., Den Hartog, D. N., & Mitchelson, J. K. 2003. Research on leadership in a cross-cultural context:

Making progress, and raising new questions. Leadership Quarterly, 14: 729-768.

Dorfman, P. W., & House, R. J. 2004. Cultural influences on organizational leadership: Literature review, theoreti-

cal rationale, and GLOBE project goals. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta

[Eds.], Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies: 49-71. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Dorfman, P. W., & Howell, J. P. 1988. Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership patterns: Hofstede

revisited. In E. G. McGoun [Ed.], Advances in international comparative management [Vol. 3]: 127-149.

Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Drost, E. A., & Von Glinow, M. A. 1998. Leadership behavior in Mexico: Etic philosophies/emic practices.

Research in International Business and International Relations, 7: 3-28.

Farh, J. L., & Cheng, B. S. 2000. A cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations. In J. T.

Li., A. S. Tsui, & E. Weldon [Eds.], Management and organizations in the Chinese context: 84-127. London:

Macmillan.

Farh, J. L., Cheng, B. S., Chou, L. F., & Chu, X. P. 2006. Authority and benevolence: Employees’ responses to pater-

nalistic leadership in China. In A. S. Tsui, Y. Bian, & L. Cheng [Eds.], China’s domestic private firms:

Multidisciplinary perspectives on management and performance: 230-260. New York: Sharpe.

Follett, M. P. 1933. The essentials of leadership. In Proceedings of the Rowntree lecture conferences. London:

University of London Press.

Freud, S. 1926. Psychoanalysis: Freudian school. In Encyclopedia Britannica [13th ed.]. London: Cambridge

University Press.

Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. 2007. Cross-cultural organizational behavior. Annual Review of Psychology,

58: 479-514.

Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. 1997. Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and con-

struct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 827-844.

Goodell, G. E. 1985. Paternalism, patronage, and potlatch: The dynamics of giving and being given to. Current

Anthropology, 26: 247-257.

590 Journal of Management / June 2008

at UNIV OF MIAMI on May 24, 2008 //jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Pellegrini, Scandura / Paternalistic Leadership 591

Graen, G. B. 2006. In the eye of the beholder: Cross-cultural lesson in leadership from project GLOBE. Academy

of Management Perspectives, 20[4]: 95-101.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. 1995. Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member

exchange [LMX] theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective.

Leadership Quarterly, 6: 219-247.

Hinkin, T. R. 1995. A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management,

21[5]: 967-988.

Hofmann, D. A. 1997. An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical linear models. Journal of Management,

23: 723-744.

Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across

nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. [Eds.]. 2004. Culture, leadership, and orga-

nizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jackman, M. R. 1994. The velvet glove: Paternalism and conflict in gender, class, and race relations. Berkeley:

University of California Press.

James, K., Chen, D. L., & Cropanzano, R. 1996. Culture and leadership among Taiwanese and U.S. workers: Do

values influence leadership ideals? In M. N. Ruderman, M. W. Hughes-James, & S. E. Jackson [Eds.], Selected

research on work team diversity: 33-52. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

Kerfoot, D., & Knights, D. 1993. Management, masculinity and manipulation: From paternalism to corporate strat-

egy in financial services in Britain. Journal of Management Studies, 30[4]: 659-677.

Kim, U. M. 1994. Significance of paternalism and communalism in the occupational welfare system of Korean

firms: A national survey. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. Choi, & G. Yoon [Eds.], Individualism

and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications: 251-266. London: Sage Ltd.

Maccoby, M. 2004. The power of transference. Harvard Business Review, 82[9]: 76-85.

Martinez, P. G. 2003. Paternalism as a positive form of leader-subordinate exchange: Evidence from Mexico.

Journal of Iberoamerican Academy of Management, 1: 227-242.

Martinez, P. G. 2005. Paternalism as a positive form of leadership in the Latin American context: Leader benevo-

lence, decision-making control and human resource management practices. In M. Elvira & A. Davila [Eds.],

Managing human resources in Latin America: An agenda for international leaders: 75-93. Oxford, UK:

Routledge.

Martinez, S. M., & Dorfman, P. W. 1998. The Mexican entrepreneur: An ethnographic study of the Mexican empre-

sario. International Studies of Management and Organization, 28[2]: 97-123.

Mathur, P., Aycan, Z., & Kanungo, R. N. 1996. Work cultures in Indian organizations: A comparison between public

and private sector. Psychology and Developing Societies, 8[2]: 199-223.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. 1995. An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of

Management Review, 20: 709-734.

McGregor, D. 1960. The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.

McKnight, D. H., Cummings, L. L., & Chervany, N. L. 1998. Initial trust formation in new organizational rela-

tionships. Academy of Management Review, 23: 473-490.

Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. 1977. Institutional organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American

Journal of Sociology, 83: 343-363.

Meyer, A. D., Tsui, A. S., & Hinings, C. R. 1993. Configurational approaches to organizational analysis. Academy

of Management Journal, 36[6]: 1175-1195.

Morris, T., & Pavett, C. M. 1992. Management style and productivity in two cultures. Journal of International

Business Studies, 23: 169-179.

Munsterberg, H. 1913. Psychology and industrial efficiency. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Necowitz, L. B., & Roznowski, M. 1994. Negative affectivity and job satisfaction: Cognitive processes underlying

the relationship and effects on employee behaviors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45: 270-294.

Northouse, P. G. 1997. Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. 1994. Psychometric theory [3rd ed.]. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Osland, J. S., Franco, S., & Osland, A. 1999. Organizational implications of Latin American culture: Lessons for

the expatriate manager. Journal of Management Inquiry, 8: 219-234.

at UNIV OF MIAMI on May 24, 2008 //jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Ouchi, W. G. 1981. Theory Z: How American business can meet the Japanese challenge. Reading, MA: Addison-

Wesley.

Padavic, I., & Earnest, W. R. 1994. Paternalism as a component of managerial strategy. Social Science Journal,

31[4]: 389-405.

Pasa, S. F., Kabasakal, H., & Bodur, M. 2001. Society, organizations, and leadership in Turkey. Applied Psychology:

An International Review, 50: 559-589.

Pearce, J. L. 2005. Paternalism and radical organizational change. Paper presented at the meeting of the Academy

of Management, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Pellegrini, E. K., & Scandura, T. A. 2006. Leader-member exchange [LMX], paternalism and delegation in the

Turkish business culture: An empirical investigation. Journal of International Business Studies, 37[2]: 264-279.

Pellegrini, E. K., Scandura, T. A., & Jayaraman, V. 2007. Generalizability of the paternalistic leadership concept:

A cross-cultural investigation [working paper]. St. Louis: University of Missouri–St. Louis.

Raabe, B., & Beehr, T. A. 2003. Formal mentoring versus supervisor and coworker relationship: Differences in per-

ceptions and impact. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24: 271-293.

Redding, S. G. 1990. The spirit of Chinese capitalism. New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Redding, S. G., Norman, A., & Schlander, A. 1994. The nature of individual attachment to theory:A review of East

Asian variations. In H. C. Triandis, M. D. Dunnett, & L. M. Hough [Eds.], Handbook of industrial and organi-

zational psychology: 674-688. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychology Press.

Roland A. 1984. The self in India and America. In V. Kavolis [Ed.], Designs of selfhood: 170-191. Rutherford, NJ:

Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.

Saufi, R. A., Wafa, S. A., & Hamzah, Y. Z. 2002. Leadership style preference of Malaysian managers. Malaysian

Management Review, 37: 1-10.

Scandura, T. A., Von Glinow, M. A., & Lowe, K. B. 1999. When East meets West: Leadership “best practices” in

the United States and the Middle East. In W. Mobley [Ed.], Advances in global leadership: 235-248. Stamford,

CT: JAI.

Schein, E. H. 1981. Does Japanese management style have a message for Americans? Sloan Management Review,

23[1]: 55-68.

Schriesheim, C. A., Hinkin, T. R., & Podsakoff, P. M. 1991. Can ipsative and single-item measures produce erro-

neous results in field studies of French and Raven’s [1959] five bases of power? Journal of Applied Psychology,

76[1]: 106-114.

Sinha, J.B.P. 1990. Work culture in Indian context. New Delhi, India: Sage.

Stogdill, R. M. 1974. Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York: Free Press.

Sullivan, D., Mitchell, M., & Uhl-Bien, M. 2003. The new conduct of business: How LMX can help capitalize on cul-

tural diversity. In G. Graen [Ed.], Dealing with diversity: 183-218. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Tsui, A. S., Pearce, J. L., Porter, L. W., & Tripoli, A. M. 1997. Alternative approaches to the employee-organization

relationship: Does investment in employees pay off? Academy of Management Journal, 40: 1089-1121.

Tsui, A. S., & Wu, J. B. 2005. The new employment relationship versus the mutual investment approach:

Implications for human resource management. Human Resource Management, 44[2]: 115-121.

Uhl-Bien, M., & Maslyn, M. 2005. Paternalism as a form of leadership: Differentiating paternalism from leader-

member exchange. Paper presented at the meeting of the Academy of Management, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Uhl-Bien, M., Tierney, P., Graen, G., & Wakabayashi, M. 1990. Company paternalism and the hidden investment

process: Identification of the “right type” for line managers in leading Japanese organizations. Group and

Organization Studies, 15: 414-430.

VanDeVeer, D. 1986. Paternalistic intervention: The moral bounds of benevolence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. 1984. Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional states.

Psychological Bulletin, 96: 465-498.

Weber, M. 1947. The theory of social and economic organization [A. M. Henderson & T. Parsons, Trans.]. New

York: Free Press.

Weber, M. 1968. The types of legitimate domination. In G. Roth & C. Wittich [Eds.], Economy and society [Vol.

3]: 212-216. New York: Bedminster.

Westwood, R. 1997. Harmony and patriarchy: The cultural basis for “paternalistic headship” among the overseas

Chinese. Organization Studies, 18: 445-480.

592 Journal of Management / June 2008

at UNIV OF MIAMI on May 24, 2008 //jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Westwood, R., & Chan, A. 1992. Headship and leadership. In R. Westwood [Ed.], Organisational behaviour:

Southeast Asian perspectives: 118-143. Hong Kong: Longman.

Wu, T. Y., Hsu, W. L., & Cheng, B. S. 2002. Expressing or suppressing anger: Subordinate’s anger responses to

supervisors’ authoritarian behaviors in a Taiwan enterprise. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese

Societies, 18: 3-49.

Yang, K. S., Yu, A. B., & Yeh, M. H. 1989. Chinese individual modernity and traditionality: Construct definition and

measurement. In K. S. Yang & A. B. Yu [Eds.], Chinese psychology and behavior: 241-306. Taipei, Taiwan: Laureat.

Biographical Notes

Ekin K. Pellegrini earned her PhD from the University of Miami. She is an assistant professor of management at

the University of Missouri–St. Louis. Her research interests include cross-cultural leadership, leader-member

exchange, and mentoring.

Terri A. Scandura is dean of the Graduate School and a professor of management at the University of Miami,

Florida. She received her PhD in organizational behavior from the University of Cincinnati. Her research interests

include leadership, mentorship and applied research methods. She has authored numerous articles and book chapters.

Pellegrini, Scandura / Paternalistic Leadership 593

at UNIV OF MIAMI on May 24, 2008 //jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Video liên quan

Bài Viết Liên Quan

Toplist mới

Bài mới nhất

Chủ Đề