Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T15:26:41.238Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Paternalistic leadership, subordinate perceived leader–member exchange and organizational citizenship behavior

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 February 2015

Chaoying Tang  and
Stefanie E Naumann
Chaoying Tang
Affiliation:
School of Management, Graduate University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
Stefanie E Naumann*
Affiliation:
Eberhardt School of Business, University of the Pacific, Stockton, CA, USA
*
Corresponding author: snaumann@pacific.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Chinese paternalistic leadership (PL) includes three dimensions: benevolence, morality and authoritarianism. Benevolent leadership positively affects organizational citizenship behaviors through leader–member exchange (LMX). Resource limitations of supervisors bring about LMX differentiations within groups. Little research has addressed the moderating effect of LMX differentiations on the three dimensions of paternalistic leadership and organizational citizenship behaviors. In a study on 307 team members and leaders in 47 teams in two hotels in China, we found that benevolence and moral leadership had a positive effect on organizational citizenship behaviors, whereas authoritarian leadership did not. Team LMX differentiations moderated the relationship between moral leadership, authoritarianism leadership and LMX.

Keywords

paternalistic leadershiporganizational citizenship behaviorleader–member exchange
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , May 2015 , pp. 291 - 306
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
Ambrose, M. L., Harland, L. K., & Kulick, C. T. (1991). Influence of social comparisons on perceptions of organizational fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(2), 239–246.Google Scholar
Ambrose, M. L., & Kulick, C. T. (1988). Referent sharing: Convergence within work groups of perceptions of equity and reference choice. Human Relations, 41(9), 697–707.Google Scholar
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 (pp. 109–138). Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
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 contributions (pp. 445–466). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Aycan, Z., Kanungo, R. N., Mendonca, M., Yu, K., Deller, J., Stahl, G., & Kurshid, A. (2000). Impact of culture on human resource management practices: A 10-country comparison. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49(1), 192–221.Google Scholar
Aycan, Z., Schyns, B., Sun, J.-M., Felfe, J., & Saher, N. (2013). Convergence and divergence of paternalistic leadership: A cross-cultural investigation of prototypes. Journal of International Business Studies, 44, 962–969.Google Scholar
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.Google Scholar
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Boies, K., & Howell, J. M. (2006). Leader-member exchange in teams: An examination of the interaction between relationship differentiation and mean LMX in team-level outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 246–257.Google Scholar
Burton, J. P., Sablynski, C. J., & Sekiguchi, T. (2008). Linking justice, performance, and citizenship via leader-member exchange. Journal of Business and Psychology, 23(1–2), 51–61.Google Scholar
Chan, S. C., & Mak, W. M. (2012). Benevolent leadership and follower performance: The mediating role of leader-member exchange (LMX). Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 29(2), 285–301.Google Scholar
Chen, X. P., Eberly, M. B., Chiang, T. J., Farh, J. L., & Cheng, B. S. (2014). Affective trust in Chinese leaders: Linking paternalistic leadership to employee performance. Journal of Management, 40, 796–819.Google Scholar
Cheng, B., Huang, M., & Chou, L. F. (2002). Paternalistic leadership and its effectiveness: Evidence from Chinese organizational teams. Journal of Psychology in Chinese Societies, 3(1), 113–131.Google Scholar
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 (in Chinese).Google Scholar
Cheng, B. S., Chou, L. F., & Farh, J. L. (2000). A triad model of paternalistic leadership: The constructs and measurement. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 14(1), 3–64 (in Chinese).Google Scholar
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(1), 89–117.Google Scholar
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 (in Chinese).Google Scholar
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 909–927.Google Scholar
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900.Google Scholar
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1995). Human autonomy: The basis for true self-esteem. In M. Kernis (Ed.), Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem (pp. 31–49). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Deluga, R. J. (1994). Supervisor trust building, leader-member exchange, and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67(4), 315–326.Google Scholar
Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 618–634.Google Scholar
Duchon, D., Green, S. G., & Taber, T. (1986). Vertical dyad linkage: A longitudinal assessment of antecedents, measures, and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(1), 56–60.Google Scholar
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 (pp. 94–127). London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Farh, J. L., Cheng, B. S., Chou, L. F., & Chu, X. P. (2006). Authority and benevolence: Employees’ responses to paternalistic leadership in China. In A. S. Tsui, Y. Bian, & L. Cheng (Eds.), China’s domestic private firms: Multidisciplinary perspectives on management and performance (pp. 230–260). New York: Sharpe.Google Scholar
Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. (2007). Cross-cultural organizational behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 479–514.Google Scholar
Glick, W. H. (1985). Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and psychological climate: Pitfalls in multilevel research. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 601–616.Google Scholar
Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 175–208). The Netherlands: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Development of leader-member exchange theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247.Google Scholar
Hackett, R. D., Farh, J.-L., Song, L. J., & Lapierre, L. M. (2003). LMX and organizational citizenship behavior: Examining the links within and across Western and Chinese samples. In G. Graen (Ed.), Dealing with diversity (pp. 219–263). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.Google Scholar
Henderson, D. J., Liden, R. C., Glibkowski, B. C., & Chaudhry, A. (2009). LMX differentiation: A multilevel review and examination of its antecedents and outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 20(4), 517–534.Google Scholar
Hogg, M. A., Martin, R., Epitropaki, O., Mankad, A., Svensson, A., & Weeden, K. (2005). Effective leadership in salient groups: Revisiting leader-member exchange theory from the perspective of the social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(7), 991–1004.Google Scholar
Hooper, D. T., & Martin, R. (2008). Beyond personal Leader Member Exchange (LMX) quality: The effects of perceived LMX variability on employee reactions. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(1), 20–30.Google Scholar
Hou, T. J., Wen, Z. L., & Cheng, Z. J. (2004). Structural equation model and its applications. Beijing: Educational Science Publishing House.Google Scholar
James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(2), 219.Google Scholar
Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Science, 9(2), 131–146.Google Scholar
Larkey, L. K. (1996). Toward a theory of communicative interactions in culturally diverse workgroups. Academy of Management Review, 21(2), 463–491.Google Scholar
Liang, S. K., Ling, H. C., & Hsieh, S. Y. (2007). The mediating effects of leader-member exchange quality to influence the relationships between paternalistic leadership and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of American Academy of Business, 10(2), 127–137.Google Scholar
Liden, R. C., Erdogan, B., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2006). Leader‐member exchange, differentiation, and task interdependence: implications for individual and group performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(6), 723–746.Google Scholar
Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24(1), 43–72.Google Scholar
Loi, R., Mao, Y., & Ngo, H. Y. (2009). Linking leader-member exchange and employee work outcomes: The mediating role of organizational social and economic exchange. Management and Organization Review, 5(3), 401–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinez, P. G. (2003). Paternalism as a positive form of leader subordinate exchange: Evidence from Mexico. Journal of Iberoamerican Academy of Management, 1(3), 227–242.Google Scholar
Mayer, D. M., Aquino, K., Greenbaum, R. L., & Kuenzi, M. (2012). Who displays ethical leadership, and why does it matter? An examination of antecedents and consequences of ethical leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 151–171.Google Scholar
Niu, C. P., Wang, A. C., & Cheng, B. S. (2009). Effectiveness of a moral and benevolent leader: Probing the interactions of the dimensions of paternalistic leadership. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 12(1), 32–39.Google Scholar
Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10(2), 85–97.Google Scholar
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its true nature, antecedents and consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Pellegrini, E. K., & Scandura, T. A. (2008). Paternalistic leadership: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Management, 34(3), 566–593.Google Scholar
Pellegrini, E. K., Scandura, T. A., & Jayaraman, V. (2010). Cross-cultural generalizability of paternalistic leadership: An expansion of leader-member exchange theory. Group & Organization Management, 35(4), 391–420.Google Scholar
Peng, M. W., Lu, Y., Shenkar, O., & Wang, D. Y. (2001). Treasures in the China house: A review of management and organizational research on Greater China. Journal of Business Research, 52(2), 95–110.Google Scholar
Redding, S. G. (1990). The spirit of Chinese capitalism. New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Scandura, T. A., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1994). Leader-member exchange and supervisor career mentoring as complementary constructs in leadership research. Academy of Management Journal, 37(6), 1588–1602.Google Scholar
Schyns, B. (2006). Are group consensus in leader-member exchange (LMX) and shared work values related to organizational outcomes? Small Group Research, 37(1), 20–35.Google Scholar
Silin, R. F. (1976). Leadership and values. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 655–663.Google Scholar
Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Process and structure in leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Review, 22, 522–552.Google Scholar
Uhl-Bien, M., Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (2000). Implications of leader-member exchange (LMX) for strategic human resource management systems: Relationships as social capital for competitive advantage. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 18, 137–185.Google Scholar
Uhl-Bien, M., Tierney, P., Graen, G., & Wakayabashi, 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(4), 414–430.Google Scholar
van Breukelen, W., Konst, D., & van der Vlist, R. (2002). Effects of LMX and differential treatment on work unit commitment. Psychological Reports, 91, 220–230.Google Scholar
van Breukelen, W., Schyns, B., & Le Blanc, P. M. (2006). Leader-member exchange theory and research: Accomplishments and future challenges. Leadership, 2(3), 295–316.Google Scholar
Wang, H., Niu, X. Y., & Luo, S. Q. (2004). Multi-dimensional leader-member exchange (LMX) and its impact on task performance and contextual performance of employees. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 36, 179–185.Google Scholar
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., & Tetrick, L. E. (2002). The role of fair treatment and rewards in perceptions of organizational support and leader-member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 590.Google Scholar
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 82–111.Google Scholar
Weber, L. (2014). U.S. workers can’t get no (job) satisfaction. Wall Street Journal.Google Scholar
Westwood, R. (1997). Harmony and patriarchy: The cultural basis for ‘paternalistic headship’ among the overseas Chinese. Organization Studies, 18(3), 445–480.Google Scholar
Westwood, R., & Chan, A. (1992). Headship and leadership. In R. Westwood (Ed.), Organisational behaviour: Southeast Asian perspectives (pp. 118–143). Hong Kong: Longman.Google Scholar
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601–617.Google Scholar
Zhang, Y., Huai, M. Y., & Xie, Y. H. (2014). Paternalistic leadership and employee voice in China: A dual process model. The Leadership Quarterly. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.01.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar