Leadership in Asian countries such as Chinese is oftentimes described as paternalistic leadership. Paternalistic Leadership is a native Chinese leadership style, which is deeply rooted in China's patriarchal tradition and in Confucianism (Farh et al., 2008). Based on an extensive review of this literature, Farh and Cheng (2000)
proposed a Three Dimensional Model of Paternalistic Leadership (see Figure 2-1), in which PL was defined as a type of leadership that combines strong and clear authority with concern, consideration, and elements of moral leadership. At the heart of the model are the three dimensions of PL (i.e., authoritarian leadership, moral leadership, and benevolent leadership) and their corresponding subordinate responses. Therefore, the phenomenon of PL is hypothesized to thrive in the context of a host of facilitative social / cultural and organizational factors. The key social / cultural factors consist of a strong emphasis on familism and the Confucian values of respect for authority, personalism / particularism, the norm of reciprocity, interpersonal harmony, and leadership by virtuous example (Chen & Farh, 2010).
As much as the leadership style known as paternalistic management contains some autocratic dynamism, it comes as being a bit warm and a bit fuzzy within the precincts of its approach. In its paternal aspect, it harkens in the line of a father being
firm though has good intentions in the life of one's children and in the business limelight, the subordinates. Just like most paternal beings are, except for those dads who keep saying: “I told you”, the typical paternalistic manager most of the times explains the specific reason as to why he has taken certain actions in management and for his subordinates. He is very far from being autocratic and looks after the harmony within his or her team.
Paternalism is a cultural characteristic, more than just being a type of leadership behavior. Moreover, it is not a concept that merely signifies the quality of a relation in terms of both parties’ responsibilities and duties (Erben & Güneser, 2008).
Paternalism can be analyzed with respect to the parental relations or organizational level relations. PL (Paternalistic leadership) is the prevalent leadership style in Chinese business organizations. With an approach similar to patriarchy, PL entails an evident and powerful authority that shows consideration for subordinates with moral leadership (Cheng et al., 2004). PL has three specific dimensions, i.e., Authoritarianism, Benevolence and Moral leadership.
While Benevolence and Moral leadership refer to the warm consideration of the subordinates and exhibition of moralistic leadership activities respectively, Authoritarianism entails a stringent control and power play in the leader-follower
relationship (Chen, et al., 2007).
Authoritative leadership
Authoritative leadership means that a leader stresses their unquestionable and absolute authority and that they will take rigorous control over subordinates and demand complete obedience from them. The concrete behavior that characterizes authoritarian leadership includes control and domination, underestimating the ability
of subordinates, building a lofty image of the leader, and instructing subordinates in a didactic style (Cheng, 1995). As distinct from the supervisory power that comes with position in the West, the power of authoritative leadership reflects the cultural characteristics of familism, paternalistic control, and submission to authority that are typical of Chinese society (Westwood, 1997).
However, authoritative leadership is based on the legitimacy of unequal authority and rights granted to unequal roles, with more authority and rights accorded to the superior and less to the subordinate. To be sure, Confucian authoritarianism balances greater authority and rights of the superior with greater moral, social, and economic responsibilities and obligations associated with the exercise of that authority.
Theoretically, at least the Confucian conception of authoritarian leadership is tightly coupled with benevolent and moral leadership.
Benevolent leadership
Farh and Cheng (2000) devoted much attention to the social and cultural forces underlying benevolent leadership. They concluded that benevolent leadership originates in Confucianism, which highlights mutuality in social relations. According to Confucian ethics, a ruler should be benevolent to his ministers, and, in turn, the ministers should be loyal to the ruler. Similarly, a father should be kind to his children, and, in turn, the children should show gradtitude and obeidence to their father. When each party dutifully performs his or her respective role, relational harmony is maintained (Cheng, et al., 2009). As these Confucian principles are applied to the contemporary workplace, mutual obligations on the basis of duty fulfillment emerge.
Leaders demonstrate benevolence in order to fulfill a role obligation specified by cultural consensus. In response to benevolent leadership, subordinates show respect
and loyalty to their benevolent leader in completion of their role obligations.
Benevolent leadership indicates a leader who displays personal, overall, and long-term concern for the well being of subordinates, although it should be noted that it differs from the constructs of leader consideration and supportive leadership (Chou, et al., 2005). Benevolent leadership goes beyond the work domain and is also applied
to personal issues, is long-term oriented, involves the granting of grace and protection to subordinates, and is exercised in the context of strong authority so that the subordinate does not forget who is boss (Cheng, et al., 2004).
Moral leadership
Leaders are obligated to set a moral example for organizational members and to determine those organizational activities which may be detrimental to the values of society in general (Aronson, 2001). Leaders are recognized by subordinates as
“morally” superior individuals who lead because of an overwhelming superiority (Silin, 1976). This superiority is manifested in two ways: (1) through a leader's ability to translate abstract ideas about financial and commercial success into concrete reality, and (2) through a leader's ability to reject his egocentric impulses for a higher moral good (Silin, 1976).
Leaders who engage in a moral response are driven by more than task accomplishment. They use virtues (e.g., prudence, honesty, and justice) throughout the decision-making process to achieve a virtuous outcome. This involves the use of goal setting strategies to achieve a solution that serves, helps, or benefits the greater good. This typically involves a consideration of one’s peers, subordinates, the boss, their organization, and some larger entity (e.g., the constitution, taxpayers, or environment) (Sekerka, et al., 2009). Moral responders have goals that go beyond
self-serving interests that influence the formation of their moral judgment (Sekerka, et al., 2009).
Moral leadership is characterized by a higher degree of personal integrity, self-cultivation, and selflessness. A moral leader should demonstrate behavior that conforms to social norms and virtues to set an example to others, and should demonstrate that their authority is not only for personal benefit but also for the public good (Westwood, 1997). The actual behavior includes unselfishness, being upright and responsible, leading by example, and not mixing personal interests with business interests (Cheng, et al., 2000).
Figure 2-2 is the complementarity of leader and subordinate roles, and it summarizes leader behaviors under each of the three key elements of PL and the corresponding subordinate responses. Under authoritarian leadership, the major types of leader behaviors include asserting authority and control, underestimating subordinate competence, building a lofty image and acting in a didactic style. The corresponding subordinate responses include compliance, obedience, respect, fear and shame. Leader benevolence is manifested mainly in individualized care. Its corresponding subordinate responses are gratitude and willingness to reciprocate.
Leader morality and integrity is demonstrated by acting unselfishly and leading by example, which it turn inspire identification and imitation by subordinates.
Figure 2-1 The Preliminary Model of Paternalistic Leadership (Farh & Cheng, 2000)
Moral Leader Leader’s Behaviors
Authoritative Leadership
Benevolent Leadership
Identification and Imitation Awe and
Compliance
Gratitude and Repayment Subordinates’ Responses
Culture Factors
Organizational Factors
Figure 2-2 Paternalistic Leader Behavior and Subordinate Response (Cheng et.,al 2006:16)
˙Protect even grave errors of subordinates
Leader Morality and Integrity Unselfishness
˙Does not abuse authority for personal gain
˙Does no mix personal interests with business interests
˙Put collective interests ahead of personal interests
˙Express fear in awe of the leader Have a sense of shame
˙Willing to confess mistakes
˙Take leader’s instructions seriously
˙Correct mistakes and improve
˙Identify with leader’s values and goals
˙Internalize leader’s values Modelling
˙Imitate leader behavior
2.2 Cultural Roots of Paternalistic Leadership
What are the primordial social and cultural forces in Chinese societies that render Chinese subordinates receptive to Paternalistic Leadership? Why Western society does not like Chinese society appear special leadership and subordinate response? In this sections, Farh and Cheng (2000) further traced the culture root of each dimensional of PL (paternalistic leadership).
2.2.1 Authoritative Leadership
This kind of leadership mainly from the thinking of Confucian and Legalism.
Under the thinking of Confucian, father / son axis is the important social relations and over others social relations. Father’s authority goes beyond his children (and other family members), authority can be said absolutely. Authority and legality of paternity are from role internalization of inferior in Confucian ethics, hence, obey the authority as seen as behavior that social expected by inferior (Farh & Chen, 2000). Thinking of Legalism focus on practical achievement and specific effect. According to hypothesis of human stain, Legalism reminder emperor does not believe subordinates and share authority as well. At same time, adopting all kinds of means to control subordinates (Cheng et al., 2000).
2.2.2 Benevolent Leadership
In thinking of Confucian, the relationship between two people are building based on mutuality. Two principles are clear in cultural root of benevolent leadership.
First, people who assume the superior roles (fathers, elder brothers, husbands, elders and rulers) should treat those who are in inferior roles (sons, younger brothers, wives, juniors and ministers) with kindness, gentleness, righteousness and benevolence.
Second, persons who assume the inferior roles should respect their superiors by following the principles of filial duty, obedience, submission, deference, loyalty and
obedience. In sum, the cultural roots of benevolent leadership originate from the Confucian ideal of the kind, gentle superior, and they are further cemented by practical concern for exchanging superior favours for subordinate indebtedness, personal loyalty and obedience. All come under the umbrella of the powerful norm of reciprocity (Cheng, et al., 2000).
2.2.3 Moral Leadership
As noted earlier, Confucius believed that the cultivation of individual virtues was the foundation of society. In the realm of government, Confucius emphasized the use of moral principles, moral examples and moral persuasion in governing. He did not believe in the efficacy of law and punishment, which he thought could regulate overt behaviors only, not inner thought. The most effective form of governance was therefore leading by virtue and by moral example. In sum, the importance of moral leadership has its roots in the Confucian philosophy of governance. A weak legal tradition and the rule of man further underscore the importance of moral character of those who occupy positions of authority.
Figure 2-3 lists the cultural forces behind each of the three elements of PL (paternalistic leadership). This study has used the concept of an iceberg to depict the idea that PL rests on the tip of the mass of Chinese traditional values and ideology.
Figure 2-3 Cultural Root of Paternalistic Leadership (Li et al., 2000:108)
2.3 Organizational Ethical Climate
Ethical climate refers to the psychological perceptions of subordinates toward the ethical policies and procedures of the organization (Schneider, 1975). Practitioners and academicians have been concerned for many years about the ethical climate within organizations, examining the link between ethical climate and organizational behaviors in a variety of circumstances. Ethical climate contains cues that guide subordinate’s behavior and reflects the ethical character of the organization (Cullen et al., 2003).
Ethical climate has been defined as “the prevailing perceptions of typical organizational practices and procedures that have ethical content” or “those aspects of work climate that determine what constitutes ethical behavior at work.” (Victor &
Cullen, 1988, p. 101). Due to differences in individuals’ positions, work groups, and employment histories, perceptions of organizational climate may vary within the organization (Victor & Cullen, 1988; Schwepker, 2001). Thus, it can also be described as a type of work climate that reflects organizational policies, procedures, and practices that have moral consequences (Mulki et al., 2007). Organizational leaders play a role in shaping ethical climate by both stating and implementing ethical policies and practices (Grojean et al., 2004). According to Victor and Cullen (1988), people who are benevolent tend to be less cognizant of laws or rules and may be less amenable to arguments employing rules or principles. In contrast, people who are principled tend to be less sensitive to particular effects on others. Given this, organizations might also be expected to develop relatively distinct forms of ethical climates. That is, organizations or subgroups within organizations may be prototypically benevolent, principled, or egoistic. However, although Victor and Cullen (1987) found that there was often a dominant climate type in an organization or
a group, organizations did not have single climate types. Since the loci of analysis often combine in unique ways for different organizations (Cullen, Victor, & Bronson, 1993), researchers (Cullen, Parboteeah, & Victor, 2003; Joseph & Deshpande, 1997) often develop hypotheses using the three basic criteria of moral judgment: egoistic, benevolent, and principled.
Egoistic Climate
An egoistic climate is emphasized on maximizing self-interest (Cullen et al., 2003). The egoistic climate is based on the moral philosophy of egoism, which implies that a consideration of what is in the individual’s best interest will dominate the ethical reasoning process (Ferrell & Fraedrich, 1997). Within an egoistic climate, the individual's self-interest becomes the expected primary source of moral reasoning when a decision has to be made (Victor & Cullen, 1987, 1988).
The ethical climate of self-interest, company profit, and efficiency are based on the ethical theory of egoism. Ethical egoism suggests that individuals should make decisions based on what is best for themselves, without regard to stakeholders. In terms of organizational climates, the locus of concern could be the individual, but might also be the organization or larger social system. In any case, egoistic climate emphasize that organization members should behave in a manner consistent with their self-interest when interacting with others and that there is no duty to consider the welfare of stakeholders when making decisions (Barnett & Schubert, 2002).
Benevolent Climate
Benevolence is primarily based on concern for others (Victor & Cullen, 1987;
1988). The benevolent climate is based largely on utilitarian principles of moral philosophy, which suggest that individuals make ethical decisions by considering the
positive or negative consequences of actions on referent others (Ferrell & Fraedrich, 1997). In short, in a benevolent climate, the expectation is that unit members are concerned with the well-being of each other within and outside the organization (Victor & Cullen, 1987, 1988).
The ethical climates of friendship, team interest, and social responsibility are based on benevolence, which is consistent with the ethical theory of utilitarianism. A climate emphasizing benevolence requires individuals to consider the effect of their actions on others when making decisions. Climates based on benevolence suggest that ethical decisions result in outcomes with more positive than negative consequences for others. According to Victor and Cullen (1998), these others can be the individual subordinate's friends, some organizational unit (team, department, etc.), or external constituencies (community, customers, etc.). Benevolent climate are focus on two reasons. First, benevolent climates require that subordinates look beyond self-interest when making decisions. Second, benevolent climates focus on actions' consequences to others as a primary decision criterion (Barnett & Schubert, 2002).
Principled Climate
A principled climate is defined as the organizational normative system emphasizing the compliance with rules and standard operating procedures (Koh &
Boo, 2001; Victor & Cullen, 1988; Weber, 1995). Principled climates are manifested through the application of organizational and plant rules and codes of conduct (Martin
& Cullen, 2006). The principled ethical climate is based in large part on deontological principles of moral philosophy, which posit that individuals make ethical decisions after considering actions in regard to universal and unchanging principles of right and wrong (Ferrell & Fraedrich, 1997). In a principled climate, when faced with an ethical
dilemma, organizational or group norms suggest that the decision-maker resort to decisions that are based on adherence to rules and codes (Victor & Cullen, 1988).
The ethical climates of personal morality, rules and procedures, and laws and codes are based on principle, which is consistent with the ethical theory of deontology.
Actions are judged, not based on consequences, but on universal principles of morality and absolute adherence is required. Principled climates should foster strong organizational values regarding appropriate standards for making decisions (Barnett &
Schubert, 2002).
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODLOGY
This chapter first introduces the construct measurements of research constructs, including three paternalistic leadership types, and three dimensions of ethical climates.
Then, the conceptual model of this research is presented. Finally, the research design, including the sampling plan, data collection, and data analysis techniques are described.
3.1 Research Hypotheses
3.1.1 Authoritative Leadership and Egoistic Climate
The authoritative leader may behave four kinds of behavior as follows: (1) autocratic style (2) debasing behavior (3) Image building (4) didactic behavior; and the subordinate reacted by compliance, obedience, fear, awe and shame (Cheng, 1998).
Therefore, authoritative leaders use of the leader's legal right and always have others do things on his way without considering the subordinates volitions; in other words, that is to demand and rule stakeholders with his own standard.
Lewin (1939) thought an authoritative leader focuses on his organizational target, merely concerned about the organizational interest. Because of his lacked of concerned about stakeholders, there is a widing gap between a leader and a stakeholders in a psychological sense. The insensitiveness of a leader toward stakeholders builds a wall of an alertness and hostility between each other, which facilitates the frustration and mechanize behaviors of subordinates and other subordinates. Therefore, authoritative leader behaviors will lead to egoistic climates promoting self-interested behaviors of an organization. In other words, stakeholders
are expected to put the organizational interest in the first order under the leading of an authoritative leader. According to the descriptions above, the following hypothesis can be stated:
Hypothesis 1: There is a positive relation between authoritative leadership and egoistic climate.
3.1.2 Benevolent Leadership and Benevolent Climate
Benevolent leadership has two features as follows: (1) Individualized care:
involves not only the magnanimous work but also the private questions including looking after the family support, and an emergency help; besides, take the long-term employment for old, loyal staff. (2) Avoid embarrassing subordinates in public: when they make mistakes, and even protect subordinates who make grave errors. For show below average of subordinates than formally, and leaders should continue to their subordinates whose performance are less well than average; even subordinates should be punished privately (Cheng, 1998). Leaders who adopt benevolent behavior for subordinates are similar to what Redding (1990) mentioned: take care of subordinates like father, the sensitiveness of a leader toward a subordinate demand, benevolence is similar to Westwood (1997) concept of taking care of individuals (Syu, et al., 2004);
subordinates will reward in respect.
Leaders think at any rate their companies are the place they live on without their companies, they lose their workplace, where they can earn for their livings, and they suffer by themselves without pay. Only when a company makes profits can one make profits after all; the efforts you make cannot absolutely accord with the profits your company makes. A subordinate who protects an organization interest has a sense of honor. A subordinate who has a sense of honor can consider the situation a whole, focusing on interests of a group, rather than personal benefits. Such a subordinate will
sacrifice his interests instead of damaging the interests of a group. Leaders understand that prospects of a self-development rely on the powerful development of an organization. In fact, a subordinate who shares the same belief can be in a position of trust (Chen, 2009).
A benevolent leader should not limit empowerment to a top-down approach;
rather, they should emphasize subordinates’ psychological empowerment. The goal of empowerment will be achieved only when empowerment is perceived by subordinates
rather, they should emphasize subordinates’ psychological empowerment. The goal of empowerment will be achieved only when empowerment is perceived by subordinates